User talk:Harrias/sandbox

Lead

@Gog the Mild: I'm really awful at these lead things. If you would be so kind, would you consider taking a look over this one? It feels to me like I've got the balance all wrong, but I can't see the wood for the trees. Harrias ^talk 18:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias, seems OKish to me, but disproportionately large and with too much unnecessary detail. If you were to give me free rein I would trim it down a bit. If you would like me to do that, if only so you could contrast and compare, say. About to cook so you have a while to decide. (Will make a change from crappily sourced Punic battles.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Consider the reins free. (Also cooking dinner...) Harrias ^talk

PS Amazing finish to the cricket for Derbyshire!

Wow; I hadn't seen that. It's been nice having cricket back in Taunton, I walk past the ground most days, and just being able to hear them playing is nice (and maybe a bit of peering through the gates like a child!) Harrias ^talk

PPS. You seem to be dropping back in the WikiCup - anything I can assess for you to help you out? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm trying not to stress about it, and just get back to doing what I enjoy. I've got an FAC and an FLC that should pass before the end of the month, and a few GAs nominated (plus this one soon, hopefully), so what will be, will be. It wouldn't be the end of the world to be knocked out. Harrias ^talk 18:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias, A bit rough and ready, but how's that? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I'm happy with it, thanks. I think I just get carried away, and want to include everything. Anyway, I'm sure it will get refined plenty through the GA/ACR/FA process! Now I just need to work on some of the finer detail, and work out how to deal with Willis-Bund. It differs on some major points from the main modern sources, but includes a lot more detail. So far I've mostly ignored Willis-Bund, on whom the current article is basically copied from, in favour of the modern sources, as I'm pretty sure Gaunt, Wanklyn and Royle are far more reliable. But that leaves me wondering whether I just ignore his finer detail, on the basis it can't be relied upon, or believe it. Ah, the fun and games of untangling history. Harrias ^talk 20:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes worry that older sources have a tendency to, well, make things up. I wonder where they get their detail from that more modern sources can't find.

Just listened to England foul up against Ireland! Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think some Victorian historians might have liked to "fill out" their histories.

Good for Ireland; they might not be the side they were a few years ago, but they've got good players, and with a few of our names missing for the Test tomorrow, they were always going to have a shot in this series. Valuable World Cup Super League points. Harrias ^talk 21:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Ha; have a read of the article on John William Willis-Bund: "some of his views were not generally held to be those of other academics writing in the field", "the work was but indifferently done", "dubious and prejudiced"... (There's some praise too, but I think I might steer clear.) Harrias ^talk 21:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wise I think. He could get stomped in a source review. It can be done: eg Alfred Burne freely joined the dots, occasionally unwisely, but at least he was overt about his theory of inherent military probability. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]