User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Smallville

I moved your comments to Wikipedia:Peer review/Pilot (Smallville)/archive1, and responded to them there. I made changes in one edit so that you can see them altogether. I didn't strike or check any of your concerns, I'd rather you took the liberty of letting me know which you feel are addressed and which you feel are not. Bignole 14:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you mind if I break up your responses and place the relevant sentences under each point I made, so that I can more easily follow what each specific issue is? Awadewit | talk 16:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If that works for you. Sorry for the delay, didn't have your page saved. I didn't explain every single thing, because some of your suggestions were minor and I just took the liberty of using them (like the rewording of a sentence).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

After going over it some more, I've decided that the best course of actions is to just move the "themes" into "production" and re-title it "writing". Gough and Millar (and Nutter for that matter) don't do a good job with explaining what they mean by "themes", as you've pointed out. Moving it, and rewording some things to be more neutral inregards to the terminology of "themes" (i.e. instead of saying a lot of "this theme..." just say things like "they were trying to convey ....") it probably the best course of action at the moment.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I would either put this information under "plot summary" or under a section on "structure of episode" or something like that. "Writing" is a little vague as a heading. Can we come up with something more descriptive? Awadewit | talk 04:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what other title it would go under to make sense. Generally everything they did was based on how they wrote it, and less about how Nutter filmed it. So it was how they wrote the pilot that developed their so called "themes". I do know that, from the dvd commentary, that Gough and Millar wrote the graveyard scene specifically as this allegory, of sorts, for an "angel", when Clark steps in front of the huge angel headstone, and its wings are expanded out to appear as though they are Clark's. I don't know if it was meant to be representation to the audience or to Lana. Obviously, we would see it, but I don't know if it was something that was used to show his protection over her. The later Nutter purposefully shot the final scene between Jonathan and Clark (where Clark tells him he's glad Martha and Jonathan found him), looking up (from Jonathan's perspective) at Clark, who is at the top of the loft, to give this sort of Jesus (I'll have to go back and check the commentary to see if he said Jesus or Messiah) meaning. Which wouldn't surprise me since Superman is often compared to Christ. Anyway, I didn't include it because one was at the beginning and one at the end of the episode, and again they weren't clear exactly how they were trying to convey things.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you suggest that as a title once before? "Allegory"? There are some clear themes, while others seem to be more subtext. Do you think it would work called it "Themes and allegories"? I would appeciate your help pulling the true "themes" out, as your expertise in literature gives you a much better understanding of such things.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe I suggested "Symbolism," which is different from allegory. I would go with "Themes and symbols," since real allegory is so rare these days. Themes tend to be overarching ideas that are developed through multiple scenes while symbols, although often repeated, do not necessarily need a repetition to make clear (Christ imagery, for example, can easily be conveyed with a single "crucifixion" scene, as in the Smallville pilot). Let me know if that helps. Awadewit | talk 12:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'm about to head to work so I'll fiddle with it there. I wish they would have said something about the scarecrow/crucifixition scene that would have been great. I'll move it back, re-title, and see if I can work with the wording to make the ideas more clear per your suggestion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me know when you are done and I will look at the article again. Awadewit | talk 12:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...I'm going to probably need your help. When I try and reword things it just comes off as original research to me. I know what he means, but I don't want to say it without being able to prove it was Nutter's, Gough's, or Millar's own words. I think I did that originally, as Nutter, in the commentary, refers to the "relationship triangles" as actually just "triangles". I was seeing the relationship of the characters (Jonathan standing between Clark and Lex, and him being the father Lex always wanted; Chloe, Pete, and Clark [the outsiders], and the true love triangle of Lana, Clark, and Whitney). I'll probably need to go back and watch it again to see if I missed something they said. I feel like I need a new eye to look at it. You made comments on the peer review, but when I try and make adjustments, as I said, it just comes across (to me that is) as original research, because I shouldn't be interpreting their ideas for them, when they don't make them clear.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, let me see about merging it to the plot section (as you mentioned on the peer review). I'm usually apprehensive about such things because it can break the flow of the section. For instance, it's suggested that when you mention actors to put them in parathesis [...Clark Kent (Tom Welling)] so as not to break the flow with "...Clark Kent, portrayed by Tom Welling,." I'll see if it can be worked that way though, and let you know.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I put it all in the plot section. I guess you could read through it all now, and let me know how it all flows and if you think it works better that way.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I will look at it in a few days, if that is okay. Awadewit | talk 23:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say, awesome new user page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's still a work in progress. You can thank Phaedriel for the design. Awadewit | talk 05:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions and the actions. I left responses for all your recent comments (or took action where I could).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not done yet, by the way. I had to stop and go see a movie. :) Awadewit | talk 05:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I knew you weren't. That's why I made sure to let you know I left some responses. I hope it was Transformers (which was awesome).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought about it . . . but then I saw the reviews. I saw Ratatouille instead. It was fun. Awadewit | talk 12:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Critics are generally idiots. It was the first movie this summer that didn't let me down. For 2 hours and 20 minutes, I never onced looked at my watch, and in the end it didn't feel like it was that long.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

JP

Awadewit, I've gone over the rest of my printout with my purple pen, and I'll be able to transfer more minor corrections from this in the next couple of days.

While "debates" over "British versus American spelling" are of minimal interest to me, I note that JP is a lot more British than American, that some WP guideline or other (can't be bothered to look it up) says that this is a reason for the spelling to be British,* and that it seems to be American. I'm unperturbed by this. But I am a little perturbed by the thought that some nincompoop with a spelling obsession will later march in and make other "improvements" while he (yes, surely he) Briticizes the spelling. Should one anticipate this by Briticizing it in advance?

(This is a tentative and very unenthusiastic suggestion, most certainly not a demand.)

I refuse the Briticize the article (as you say) because it is not just spelling that would have to be changed. Dialects are distinctive because of their spelling, syntax, diction, etc. I do not know BE and am therefore unqualified to change the article. I also believe that the regulation is silly (should Chaucer's article be in Middle English?). I have fought this fight before and always won because there is a clause in the wikipedia policy saying that the original editor's dialect should remain (see WP:ENGVAR) and perhaps because I have been willing to stick out the debates. That is one that I will not cede. (See the archives of Mary Wollstonecraft and Anna Laetitia Barbauld.)

* Or so I think. But if you can find some other guideline that says e.g. that this one is trumped by editorial precedence (that spelling is set by the first creator), I'll be delighted.

-- Hoary 03:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but the aforementioned nincompoop will proudly announce that he knows BE even if you don't, and that he will gladly change the spelling and for that matter the syntax, diction, etc. (incidentally revealing that he doesn't realize that genuine syntactic differences are minuscule). The options may turn out to be (a) BE on his terms versus (b) BE on yours.

Still, you seem to have prevailed in this and good for you. I'll happily support AE. (As for my personal preferences, well, I couldn't -- no [gotta practice AE] I could care less which "system" of spelling is used in the JP or any other article.) -- Hoary 06:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

See 1794 Treason Trials. It begins again. I just feel that changing the spelling, syntax and diction in articles that do not have very many editors is a problem because editors write in the dialect most familiar and comfortable to them. I know that I would start hesitating to add things to articles that have been "Briticized" when there are no other editors on the page to help me out. Besides, wikipedia gives me great writing practice. That benefit would largely disappear if I were constantly worried about BE and AE issues. (I am sure that I could change all of the requisite spelling and syntax - I am just not sure of the diction. If it comes down to changing everything, though, I would be happy to have you do it.) Awadewit | talk 01:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Source

Hi - the author is George Rudé. While I don't have access to any of his works, all the references I can find describe him as being the most important theorist on the subject of urban riots, but also point to difficulties with his classification into urban riots, food riots, etc. (for example, Nicholas Rogers' Crowds, Culture, and Politics in Georgian Britain, or The Bristol Bridge Riot and Its Antecedents: Eighteenth-Century Perception of the Crowd. I assume that Rudé's work was Sheps' starting point, although again, I do not have access to his book, so this assumption could be incorrect. The interesting Bristol Bridge article argues that the concept of an urban riot is somewhat flawed, and it discusses several earlier disturbances in the city with some of the characteristics of an urban riot. Warofdreams talk 17:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It is true that I was relying on E.P. Thompson, another important historian of the crowd and the lower-class that Rogers argues against in his book. (I happened to have Thompson but not Rogers at hand when I threw the article together.) I will go check out the Rogers pronto. I was not planning on doing a whole section in the Priestley Riots article on the phenomenon of the crowd, mostly because I wrote this as a spin-off of Joseph Priestley in order to enable me to cut that article down. Let me know if you think I should add a section on crowds and riots in the eighteenth century more broadly. (By the way, Sheps doesn't cite Rudé, he just begins his article "The Birmingham 'Church and King' Riots of 1791 were the first major outbreaks of urban rioting outside London in the eighteenth century.") Since you seem to know something about this material already, might you consider helping out with the article? I so rarely encounter editors who know anything about the articles on which I am working. This is the first time I have had a real discussion about sources - I love it! Awadewit | talk 18:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I don't think that I could add very much to the article, as you have clearly been researching the topic. I'm also not sure that a section on C18 crowds and riots would add very much, although I have on occasion toyed with the idea of an article on revolts and riots through British history - do you think this might have potential? Warofdreams talk 21:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent idea, although very challenging. I think that you should go for it. If you do, let me know if you want any help. (I could also use it as the basis for a summary in the Priestley Riots article!) Awadewit | talk 03:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Jane Austen Replacement Article

I would be very happy to work with you on the Jane Austen replacement article. As you can see from my userpage, my (undergradute) training was as a historian, not in literature or criticism. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, and decided to take on the Jane Austen article because (i) I'm interested in the topic (most important), (ii) the existing article is so inadequate, (iii) as a result of a book sale, I'd recently done significant useful background reading (Tomalin, Jenkyns, Claudia Johnson, Mary Waldron, John Wiltshire), and (iv) I needed practice and wanted to make a contribution. The replacement article can definitely use (and deserves) a professional touch.

I plan to finish initial editing of the "Life/Works/Criticism" sections in the next week or two after others have had a chance to review the material and comment. I suggest that you wait to work on those sections until I've made the replacement, but please feel free to leave comments on those sections on the talk page for the replacement article. I plan to replace the bulk of the existing article with the "Life/Works/Criticism" material and continue working in my sandbox on the remaining sections of the outline. You would be welcome to work on the remaining sections there - it is tactful of you to ask - or I can just install the remainder of the outline in the main article if you would prefer. Please let me know. Whatever we do, we should continue to communicate to avoid duplication of effort.

Severa suggested that the bulk of the "Family Setting" material should be shunted to a separate article (she suggested a new article on George Austen) in order to shorten the article and make it more acceptable to evaluators for FA status. Perhaps subpages for "Family Setting" and the "Filmography" would make more sense - I want to think about this and would appreciate your thoughts. Simmaren 18:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I have only been on wikipedia for a few months as well, I have managed to shepherd six articles through the FA process and have done quite a bit of reviewing there, so I am fairly familiar with the process. Like you, I want Austen to someday reach that level. Awadewit | talk 01:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the Austen article (obviously). I was planning to do just what you did when I got to my dissertation chapter on Austen. However, I recommend that when the article is complete, that you post a message to the talk page of the Jane Austen article and ask people to comment on your page and invite them to improve it. Replacing the whole page might not be viewed as being bold but as a unilateral assertion of authorship. I know that you have no such intention - I am just letting you know what might happen if you did that. Wikipedia is supposed to work by consensus (this is sometimes effective and sometimes not), so it is often a good idea to solicit consensus to head off any edit wars. "Janeites" can be possessive and dogmatic. Awadewit | talk 01:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I was aware of the "authorship" issue and the possessiveness of "Janeites". Perhaps I was feeling overworked and impatient, but I posted such an invitation to review the "Life/Works/Criticism" sections on June 16, 2007 on the talk page of the existing article. I also posted similar invitations on the user talk pages of four individuals: Clarityfiend (who copyedited another article I wrote and commented briefly on this one), Severa (who had begun his/her own replacement article and has commented at length on this one), Durova and Churchh (who seem to have the most posts on the talk page of the existing article). Yllosubmarine (Maria) found the article and said he/she would review and comment. I'm open on the question of timing - my impatience benefited from vacation. Simmaren 13:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I had always thought that changing the page a section at a time would be best - it is least intrusive. But there is always something to be said for a revolution. :) Awadewit | talk 23:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I will do a little peer review of the "Life/Works/Criticism" section on the talk page of your draft. I think it would be a good idea to post your initial outline for the page; that way, the material I add will not have to be reorganized later (hopefully). Awadewit | talk 01:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The outline is embedded in the article itself and reflected in the table of contents. Please feel free to add, subtract or modify. Simmaren 13:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me say how happy I am to find someone writing such a thoughtful and thorough page. It is rare for literature articles around here. Also, if you want to work on Samuel Johnson together sometime in the future, please let me know. I belong to an eighteenth-century listserv for academics and that article in particular has been cited on the listserv as representative of the problems with wikipedia. Since I am not a Johnson expert, I have not tried to tackle it yet, but I think that if we work together, we could do a good job. (I also know someone else that might want to work on that page - Geogre. Awadewit | talk 01:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the kind words. I appreciate your willingness to take the time to comment while concentrating on your dissertation. The Old Curmudgeon is a worthy (and fun) topic and I would be happy to work on it with you and others who are interested, when JA is where it needs to be and your dissertation is where you need it to be. William Hazlitt and Samuel Pepys would also be interesting and worthwhile projects for later. Simmaren 13:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I love Pepys! I have read the entire diary. That would be a lot of fun and not nearly so much work as Samuel Johnson. Awadewit | talk 23:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious about your dissertation. Simmaren 13:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell - eek! I am arguing that women children's writers at the end of the eighteenth century are inventing a new conception of the self that both built on Locke's and Rousseau's but also rejected crucial elements. The most critical element they introduced is sensibility (an appalling page). They endorsed a Christian self built upon social feeling as well as reason; they did not promote the same kind of individuality as Locke and Rousseau. Because they emphasized social feeling, they also advocated a largely ungendered self - an everyone can feel together kind of thing. This feeling self also allows children to participate in "the political sphere"; Locke and Rousseau's children are barred from that because they are irrational. Awadewit | talk 23:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Subpages are out. It is against WP policy to use them as I suggested. The length of the JA replacement article is a concern. It now comprises about 9,300 words of "readable prose," which is (barely) within the guidelines, but will probably exceed the suggested maximum limit of 10,000 words shortly. Perhaps this doesn't matter for an important topic, but I'd appreciate your thoughts. Simmaren 13:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what policy you are referring to. You can create what are called "forked" pages in just the manner you suggested (see Isaac Newton and William Shakespeare). I have just created Joseph Priestley and education and Joseph Priestley and Dissent to remove some of the pressure from the main Joseph Priestley article. Since you are about to hit 10,000 words and the article isn't even a "complete" draft yet, I can assure you that you will run into length issues. At FAC, they are pretty picky about that (also, apparently users don't read long articles). Arguments can be made for long articles, but not that long (Joseph Priestley which is currently at 11,500 words is definitely too long, for example). Awadewit | talk 23:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So, knife ("lop't and crop't") and fork are the solution to this problem. :) Simmaren 01:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There must be a way to work "spoon" in there somewhere. :) Awadewit | talk 03:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A little peer review, indeed! Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful comments. I'll respond to them through editing or on the page with the comments. My WP work is likely to be slower for the next couple of weeks - family responsibilities and more work at work. Simmaren 19:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope it wasn't too overwhelming. I will be starting work on the article once some books arrive that I have ordered. No deadlines at wikipedia! Awadewit | talk 04:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Request

I hate to bother you, as I'm sure you are quite busy with your dissertation, etc., but I'm in need of someone to copyedit an article that I am hoping to bring to FAC in the near future. I have been working on Battle of Arras (1917) for some time now, and am relatively satisified that it meets the other criteria, but it desperately needs a thorough copyedit, and I was hoping you would oblige. Of course, I understand that you may not have time, and won't be put out if you have to decline (although, if you could recommend someone else for the job, that would be helpful as well). Thanks in advance for any assistance you can provide. Carom 22:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can give me a few days, I can do it. Awadewit | talk 23:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all - I'm going to wait until after the July 4th holiday, at the very least. Carom 00:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On June 29, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Priestley Riots, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks again, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

William Shakespeare

Next time William Shakespeare will be ready; your concerns will be met. I am saying this with supreme confidence because qp10qp is working on the article. RedRabbit1983 11:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That is very kind of him/her. I feel guilty since I asked qp10qp to review the article in the first place; s/he would never have been dragged into it all, but for me. Awadewit | talk 09:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha. Cheers for the BS. Way to go yet (I've literally spent the last six hours on two paragraphs [off-article], and still they won't come right!). I don't mind, though; it's a worthwhile article to work on. And I'm listening to some gorgeous Couperin. qp10qp 10:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

My guilt has now magnified. I am spending all my time trying to cut Joseph Priestley down to size. Hour after hour I spend deleting a sentence here and a sentence there. *sigh* "Someday my deletionist will come..." (What piece?) Awadewit | talk 10:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I was the same with Chekhov (you should see the size of the biographies!). There are bleeding chunks of it lying about offline somewhere, all meticulously referenced, to the tune of about 40k and a million hours work. The trick I played on myself in the end was to take a month off from it and come back with a meat cleaver.qp10qp 10:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I was thinking of doing. Awadewit | talk 10:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

...and thanks for the comments at Geogre's page. Good to meet you; I'm a fan, but infrequent contributor, to 18th century literature articles. Yes, feel free to use the page layout: Sharon's designs are first-rate. And good luck with the dissertation! It's stressful, sometimes fun, but feels great when done. I found the oral and comprehensive exams the most difficult part, but that's perhaps the nature of a music doctorate. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

We can always use informed amateurs, I assure you, in eighteenth-century literature. There don't seem to be many of us around and I would rather a serious autodidact work on the pages than the editors who think we are SparkNotes.

I am at a stressful moment with the dissertation, but that, too, shall pass. I am familiar with the music PhD. My piano teacher and I share horror stories. I cannot imagine his eight recitals and he cannot imagine my 200-300-page dissertation. Do you write a dissertation or compose music for the PhD? (By the way, have you read the Mozart piano concertos article up for peer review? It could probably do with an expert hand to help fix it up a bit. I have given it a pretty thorough peer review, but my knowledge of music is of the informed amateur variety. :) Awadewit | talk 04:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You gave it a nicely thorough review! I think I need to do one too. I started reading carefully at "assessment and reception" and realized that it will take a lot of time to get to the issues there, and write about them, since there are inaccuracies. It's more my nature to rewrite than write about, so I dunno. The article overall is well-written, and says a lot of true but POV-ey things, which are fine if they have sources, as you pointed out. Add one to the to-do list ...

My dissertation was a large-scale piece of music, but also I had to do a series of analyses, design course syllabi, and a bunch of other things. It was exhausting.  :) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Troilus GA review

Thanks for your comments. I'm beginning to work on them. But if I were to say I had an academic poster to prepare for next week and am still doing some of the analysis for it, I think you'll understand if I said I'm rationing how much I do at the time. Ps. Where are you studying? --Peter cohen 10:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I do understand. How about I surreptiously expand the seven days usually allowed for revision to fourteen days? If I let it go much longer than that, GAC police come pounding on my door. If that is not enough, I can just fail the article for now and when you renominate it, you can alert me and I'll review it right away so that you don't have to wait another month for some willing reviewer to come along. Awadewit | talk 21:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not say where I am studying at this point. Once I have a secure job, perhaps I will do so. Awadewit | talk 21:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I may be able to do a bit of work in the second half of next week if I get a connection from the conference. --Peter cohen 19:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The History of the Fairchild Family

Hi Awadewit. You are off to such a great start on the article The History of the Fairchild Family that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I already nominated it. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 21:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! :)

Hi there, dear Awadewit! :) First allow me to tell you it's a great pleasure to finally talk to you, after reading you thoughts and beautiful words at our common friend WilloW's talk page for quite some time (amazing what having her userpage watchlisted can do! ;) Your name is one I'm familiar with, and also one I look up, with good reason; not only you're a kind, good and friendly person, but a fantastic contributor, and I only hope to aim to be at your level one day.... even tho I know that's impossible...
I see you've adopted the design I made for Antandrus. Thank you so much, because every time see someone liking one my designs so much as to use it themselves, my modest designing abilities are complimented. The troubles you describe can be fixed, of course. Just give me a few hours, adn I'll take care of the problem myself ;) Again, thank you, and it's so nice to meet you! Love, Phaedriel - 11:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Awadewit, I've struggled with your userpage for a couple of hours; and after locating the problem, I found out it was little more serious than I thought at first. So I decided to revamp the layout entirely, in order to fit the sections properly. I hope you like the result :) The only thing that should still be arranged, is the colors you'd like to alternate. You can either have a go yourself, if you want to test them at will, or you can simply let me know and I'll asign them for you, k, dear? I hope this helps! :)

Oh, one last comment, sweetie: I see you've worked extensively on the Anna Laetitia Barbauld article. Fantastic job! :) I'm currently investing a lot of time at Wikisource adding Poetry, and I have her works on my to-do list. I may ask for your advice in the task, if you're willing... can I bother you if I need some help? It's great to meet you! :) Love, Phaedriel - 14:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments - they are much appreciated. I feel so guilty that it took you so long to fix the mess I made of your wonderful design. I was trying to change things and just ended up messing them up, I'm afraid. Thanks so much! Awadewit | talk 05:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You can certainly ask for my help on the Barbauld wikisource project. It would be wonderful to have her poetry available there. The most important poem to include is probably Eighteen Hundred and Eleven. Two others would be "The Mouse's Petition" and "Summer Evening's Meditation." Awadewit | talk 05:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: internal link on your userpage

Hi! Just came across your userpage (from Phaedriel's talkpage, of course!) and I discovered that the internal link to Otto Scholderer was non-existent. I simply don't like seeing red links. So I did a lil bit of Googling and found him on the German WP. I've added that link. Hope it's ok with you. :) aJCfreak yAk 13:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm changing it back now. I've gone and created the article for Otto Scholderer on the English WP. Well, that's WP. :) I don't know a single word of German, but I used some translation tools on the web to assist with the translation. :) Happy Wiki-ing! aJCfreak yAk 14:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That is very kind of you. Thank you. Awadewit | talk 05:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

He he. You're welcome. :) aJCfreak yAk 17:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Priestley and education

On 3 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joseph Priestley and education, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 17:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Unseens

Haha, just trying to counteract the stack of awful stub articles for minor Shakespeare characters. Wrad 12:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The History of the Fairchild Family

On 4 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The History of the Fairchild Family, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Priestley

I'm rather dubious about your claims re his originality in going to sources (or is it Sheps'). To say that the suggesting that the study of coins, inscriptions, accounts etc was an original idea in his day is absurd. The article seems rather misleading over Gibbon also - he felt an enormous sense of superiority over the Middle Ages in particlular, and fully subscribed to the Whig view of history Johnbod 02:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That quote is taken directly from Sheps but is also supported by MacLachlan and Schofield. You have to debate them, not me. I am simply reporting what is in the sources, like a good wikipedian. I cannot "fix" any scholarly biases, as you know, per WP:OR. If you have a better way to represent the scholarship on Priestley and history, please let me know. Awadewit | talk 02:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Joseph Priestley

Sorry it took so long to reply, I read most of the article a couple of weeks ago and so I wanted a chance to read it again, from top to bottom, before I replied. I still think the article is great, but I agree that it might be a bit too long (I couldn't get through it all in one sitting). Anyway, I think the easiest way of dealing with the problem is to reorganise the article. I know that is probably the last thing you want to hear, but all of the information is already in place, so I don't think it will be too painful. Depending on how it's organised, I think it will:

a) Reduce a lot of redundancy - at the moment, the article tries to deal with important aspects of Priestley's life and Priestley's life chronologically in a separate but intertwined sort of way, if that makes sense. It results in a fair bit of repetition throughout the article, mostly minor things, but by the end of the article I think it adds up.

b) Make your forks a lot easier to flesh out - I noticed you said it was hard work on the talk page.

c) Be easier for readers to find information they're looking for - I originally came to the article looking for information about the discoverer of oxygen, so I was lucky that there was quite a bit on this in its own subsection. I could have just as easily found it if it was under a science subheading or something, but what if I wanted to know about his life outside of work? Family? Children? Hobbies? A lot of this is in there, but a reader would have to dig for it. What if I wanted to get an overview of his science contributions? I'd have to piece together parts of the article. Now I'm no expert on Priestley - this article about sums up my knowledge - but I can't imagine too many readers coming to the article specifically wanting to know what he did during his time at Leeds.

For these reasons, I think it would be best to organise the article around the important aspects of his life, as opposed to a chronological order. I still think this would be a logical order for a summary biographical article, and I'd be happy to make some section name suggestions, but I think you might have a better idea. When reading I was coming up with some nitpicky comments too, for example, the article refers to Petty as Lord Shelburne exclusively except in his pictures caption, which might be confusing to readers. Also, I still don't like the text wrapping around the contents, but this is probably my maths background nagging at me more than anything. Anyway, I hope that helps a little, and I'd be happy to help out where I can. darkliight^[πalk] 05:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate these suggestions, but I am simply not invested enough in Priestley to rewrite the article that much (I am already working on two forks). The organization of the article follows all of the major biographies on Priestley, so I don't really feel all that bad about it. I feel that some of the problems you are referring to might be solved with better headings that would direct the reader. Also, if you will notice on the talk page, we have had a particular commenter insisting on chronological forks rather than subject forks (I disregarded this as unworkable for many reasons). The biggest problem with Priestley is that it is impossible to really separate his science from his theology from his metaphysics from his politics, etc. All of the scholars writing on him mention this artificial division. When trying to write the first two forks, I discovered just how difficult it was to restrict my discussion to a single topic. Awadewit | talk 06:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think most people will come to the article looking for "Priestley, the discoverer of oxygen," like you, since he is best-known for that now. One reason not to group all of the science information together is that it forces readers to learn more than they might initially have thought of doing. :) Awadewit | talk 06:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The topics that you mention that people might be looking for information on such as children, hobbies and family are not, I feel, very significant. That is why I have not made them very prominent in the article. I did try to make topics such as his political agitation and his discovery of oxygen, major events for which he is known, quite visible. Awadewit | talk 06:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What information did you feel was redundant? What was repeated? Even though the article returns to science, theology, etc. several times, I did not think that it repeated the same information. It returns to those topics because Priestley returned to them. The rhetorical "return" also gives the reader an idea of how Priestley lived, constantly circling back to the same ideas and reworking them. But if actual information is repeated, I certainly want to eliminate it. Awadewit | talk 06:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't help it about the wrapping text in the lead; what you see is the compromise we came to after you changed it. You can debate with Hoary about that if you want. I'm not going to worry about that right now. Awadewit | talk 06:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I mildly prefer text wrapping around than not wrapping around; but the preference is a mild one, my aesthetic preferences may be off, and your preferences may be better informed or stronger. If you unwrap, you won't risk objections from me. Actually wrapping was merely a by-product of my effort to get rid of the silly "infobox" thing. -- Hoary 08:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

All of the sources on Priestley refer to "Lord Shelburne" as "Lord Shelburne," so I just followed that convention. Awadewit | talk 06:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take this as an out-of-hand rejection of your suggestion - I appreciate it greatly. Perhaps if I knew more about Priestley and could easily rewrite the page, I would consider doing this, but I am not a Priestley expert. I have only read the material you see listed on the page. That makes it hard to really summarize a person's life and work. Maybe in a year or so, I will think about rewriting it that much, but I doubt it. There are so many pages about eighteenth-century figures and texts that need attention that I will more than likely not return to this article after I have made it somewhat more presentable. Awadewit | talk 06:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested, I think that ragesoss is contemplating writing a "Joseph Priestley and science" page. I feel completely inadequate to that task; eighteenth-century science is not my forte. Awadewit | talk 06:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep I got what I wanted from the article. Chemistry isn't my forte either, so I wasn't looking for any of the finer details, just some background on what and who, and I got that. As for adding the finer details about the experiment, maybe it would be best to leave it to the science page you mentioned above? Even if it is simple enough for this article, isn't space a bit of an issue? :) Also, there were no chunks of repeated information in the article - sorry about the poor choice of words. I just felt that trying to deal with Priestley's life both chronologically and by major events as a bit ... inefficient? (maybe that's the right word) Please don't take my comments as negative, as I said I really liked the article. It was merely a suggestion that might result in a shorter, but still comprehensive, article. Cheers, darkliight^[πalk] 12:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that you got what you wanted. I changed some of the headings so that hopefully they guide readers more directly to sections they are interested in. I am taking a break from the article for a while. I've been working on it for a while and need some distance. Maybe when I take it up again in a few weeks, I will reorganize a bit. Awadewit | talk 12:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Great Priestly article!!

Dear Awadewit:

I discovered the Joseph Priestley article from the Main Page Did you know item. It is a beautiful piece of work, and it appears that much of that work is yours. It is well on its way to FA quality and may already be there. Do you have any FA plans for it?

Thank you very much for the compliments. I do plan on taking the article to FA, but not for a while. I need to do more research and condense the article more. Awadewit | talk 05:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

One very tiny quibble. You evidently use Dissenters (and Dissent) throughout the article as shorthand for the English Dissenters, which is a proper noun. You should make this usage clearer throughout the article, because one can easily misunderstand you to be referring to dissenters and dissent in their generic, common noun senses. I was thus mistaken when I changed Dissenters to lower case in one of your section headings; the fact that the first use of that word in the same section was lower case only confirmed my mistake.

Thank you for this insight. I had hoped that the capitalization would alert readers to the fact that I was not discussing generic "dissenters." I feel that it is inappropriate to say "English dissenters," though, as no scholar really ever says that. It just sounds horribly wrong. There aren't any "German Dissenters" or "French Dissenters," for example. (There were Pietists and Hugenots, though.) What I will do is try to explain the idea of Dissent earlier in the article. Would that help? Awadewit | talk 05:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your usage of Dissenters requires clarification for the general reader; WP is not addressed solely, or even primarily, to specialists. As you know, WP has an article entitled English Dissenters, which suggests that it is a correct term and a proper noun, at least in the context of WP usage. However, when you link to that article, you pipe the link to Dissenters with no explanation; that is unjustified. True, those who follow the link may (if they pay sufficient attention) learn your specialized usage of Dissenters, but the majority of readers won't follow the link; the article should be understandable to the general reader without having to follow a link, so a particularized usage of a general term should be explained. Since you rejected my feeble effort at clarification in the lead sentence, please supply an explanation that you consider to be more suitable. Finell (Talk) 19:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is wrong. The page describing English religious dissenters should be called "Dissenters," but since there is already a page for "dissenters," I see why they appended "English." Anyone who takes an introductory history class about the seventeenth century or eighteenth century, will learn about "Dissenters," not "English Dissenters." All of the books that I have aimed at lay readers (such as Penguin introductions) use "Dissenters." I assume that you think explaining "Dissent" early in the article would help (something I suggested in my comment above). Awadewit | talk 06:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A second quibble. Much as I hate it, WP:STYLE dictates that punctuation follow the close quotation mark unless the mark is part of the quotation. This is contrary to the typographic convention with which I am familiar, and looks ugly to me (possibly because I am very familiar with typographic convention). But that IS official WP style. And that is something that will be spotted in an FA review. Finell (Talk) 04:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that policy now (I had not bothered to look at it before). Here's the thing. I am unwilling to go back to all of my sources to check for that. If that keeps the article from achieving FA, that is too bad. Anyone who opposes on that alone is insane. I have been the primary or sole contributor for six FAs so far and this issue has never arisen, so I think I am pretty safe. But thanks for the heads up. I will try to follow this rule from now on (there are so many - it is hard to remember them all!). Awadewit | talk 05:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You needn't go back to all the sources, as it is always correct as a matter of WP style (although it is incorrect elsewhere) to place punctuation after the close quotation mark. Finell (Talk) 19:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I thought I would need to find which ones had periods and which ones did not. Still, I don't feel like changing all of those quotes. I am not that interested in such minutiae at the present. The article still needs a lot of work on the content and the prose in general. If you want to change all of those quotation marks, be my guest. I will make sure that all of the quotes I add conform to that style. Awadewit | talk 22:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now added these concerns to a "To do list" on the article's talk page. Awadewit | talk 04:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! :)

Thank you so much for the beautiful gift and the incredibly kind words, dear Awadewit! :) It's a great pleaure that you liked my modest work on your userpage, and please, if you ever ned my help with it, don't hesitate to knock at my door again. And one last thing: thanks so much on your kind advice regarding Barbauld's work! I'll show you the results when that particular project is finished (I have to complete Ella Wheeler Wilcox's works first, and trust me the lady really was prolific! ;) Have a beautiful day! Love, Phaedriel - 19:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks. You should see Mary Martha Sherwood's list of works. There are actually over 400. Awadewit | talk 23:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:JSTOR GAC

What??? Were you reviewing it?? Oh, I am infinitely sorry! Please, feel free to remove my review altogether. Somehow I must have missed it. Please do. Once again, apologies, and I'll be more careful next time. (I tend to move very quickly through the links, so I must have just been going too fast to notice). Once again, sorry. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I had placed the little "review" sign underneath the article on the GAC page. I left your comments, which I felt were justified, but added my own. I put the article on hold. Awadewit | talk 23:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thats fine. So you agree with my comments? Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• In general, yes. I find that it is most helpful to be as specific as possible when reviewing pages. For example, you thought the page was too short - what did you think was missing from it? (I think it probably meets the GA comprehensive criteria but not the FA depth criteria). Awadewit | talk 23:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• You mentioned that the article only used five inline citations. What statements did you feel necessitated additional support? (I added a fact tag for the Artstor section, which was completely unsupported.) Also, having a wide variety of sources is actually good, not bad. Awadewit | talk 23:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Like I said, I think that you were on the right track, but a good reviewer often has to be specific. Sometimes they even offer suggestions of their own. Just some friendly advice. You have the makings of an excellent reviewer and we certainly need those around here. Awadewit | talk 23:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I have only just gotten into reviewing - I usually write the articles, not review them I've gotten more into it now though. Also, if you wouldnt mind, as a fellow reviewer, could you please give me your opinion on GAreview? While its use is not at first apparent, it really is a useful tool. See the variables section, and tell me what you think of it as a tool for GA. Thanks, Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I will/am working on improving the template, and will try and thread some more things in, as you suggested. By the way, the number of days is if you want to be specific. Yes, then default is 2-7, but if someone wants it done in 3 days, then thats what the variable is for. Regards, Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Later, I'll make the default "2-7 days", but make it possible to be specific. How does that sound? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Awadewit | talk 11:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Leaving the variable 3 blank will result in 2-7 days. Filling out variable 3 will replace "2-7 days" -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Just now I implanted a fourth variable of the Hold variable: typing "alert" in the place of the fourth variable will create an optional sentence along the lines of "please contact me when the article is ready for re-review", and leaving the fourth variable non-existent in the Hold variable will omit this message. Thanks, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fairchild

Per this thread, is it possible to go deeper into how Pip was influenced by The History of the Fairchild Family? Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Responded on thread. Awadewit | talk 04:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The History of the Fairchild Family

Copied from User talk:Doops: In your comments regarding The History of the Fairchild Family at DYK (to which I have responded), you mentioned that the article was long. I was surprised to read that. If anything, I feel that it is short (it is approximately 1800 words) - it is limited by the amount of scholarship published on Sherwood and the book. Would you mind telling me what elements of the article made it seem long to you? Thanks. Awadewit | talk 01:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Good point. It's certainly not long in absolute terms; but I think it's a little longer than average for a DYK article. It's weird -- I don't think that, stumbling across the page by accident, I would have been annoyed by my time investment in reading it; I guess it was just my disappointed Expectations (heh) that made that reading feel 'long' in the immediate aftermath. So, no, quite the contrary -- I do think that the article is a fine one, of a fine length, and I feel the better for having read it. Good work and so forth! Doops | talk 04:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It was a fork from Mary Martha Sherwood, so the "length" was easy to achieve, I suppose. Awadewit | talk 04:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

copied from User talk:Doops: I have finally located the relevant article. It is only two pages long, so there is not much material to draw on, unfortunately. Tell me whether you think the additional details are an improvement. Awadewit | talk 05:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. That's exactly what I was looking for when I followed that link from DYK. Bravo. Doops | talk 19:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

dashes

Picking up from your comment at Battle of Arras (1917), I think it's a two pronged argument.

The first is that the guidelines are dashes are just that, guidelines. Here's what the applicable bit of the WP:MOS says:

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

This Manual of Style, like all style guides, attempts to encourage consistency and ease of reading. The guidelines here are just that: guidelines are not inflexible rules; one way is often as good as another, but if everyone does it the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read, write and edit.

New contributors are reminded that clear, informative and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. (See Wikipedia:Editing policy.)

The second is WP:BURO which reinforces the principle that rules may be broken (especially when they're not rules anyway, but guidelines).

Your protagonist is a bully. He is trying to force you to comply with his notions of correct style by opposing FAC.

ROGER ^TALK 05:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for barging in here (caught the first part of this discussion on the Arras talk page), but I think another relevant essay (unfortunately not a guideline or policy) is this one. Also: thanks to Awadewit for very helpful comments with regards to the Arras article; I will try and mop up anything that Roger hasn't got to already over the next couple of days. And thanks, Roger, you're doing some really wonderful work over there. Carom 05:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, many FAC reviewers don't see the MOS as a guideline. Also, what is even more annoying is that I have complied with almost every wikipedia guideline that I know of. I think that I am going to take a break from FAC for a while after this. I have had too many annoying experiences like this. Good work on the article - I suggest a thorough review of the MOS before heading over to FAC! :) Awadewit | talk 06:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My Wiki Study

Hi Awadewit,

Thanks for leaving a message for me! Yes, I am indeed doing research on WP :-), for my geography thesis. I'm writing about citizenship and community online. I see from your user page that you are also writing a thesis, so I can sympathise with your work load. And I have heard your name before because Willow has mentioned you as one of her wiki-friends :-)

I would love to interview you if you are interested! The questions are based around your own experiences and thoughts regarding WP and questions regarding citizenship/community online. There's no specific type of user I'm looking for as I'm trying to interview as many people as possible to get different opinions/experiences/ideas. I interview via email and all up the questions take around an hour (although i send the questions in batches, so it's not an hour in one go).

If you are still interested (I hope so!) please email me (I have my email active from my user page). Then I can send you all relevant info and we can get going :-).

Hope to hear from you soon, Best, tamsin 13:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, I must be really blind, because I don't see an email link on your userpapge. Awadewit | talk 01:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

you can use the one in the toolbox in the left toolbar: Email this user :-) sorry, i wasn't very clear. tamsin 06:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I am so blind. Sorry. Awadewit | talk 07:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Rosaline GA

I've gone over everything you outlined, and got a copyeditor to run through the article. Have a look. Wrad 21:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Have at it again. Wrad 16:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Your user page

First of all, you're welcome. :) Second, I tried to find out why the border is not showing on the left side of the "Special Contributions" box, and cannot understand how to fix it. LOL. I did make an effort, but failed. You made a mess of the coding with all the spaces and breaks. :p But, your userpage still looks very good. The coding is so confusing to me, as I am but a novice at HTML, and CSS is way over my head. :/ So, my critique, is not to be taken seriously. Perhaps a more experienced editor will come along and help. Take care, my dear Awadewit. :) - Jeeny ^Talk 22:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. (By the way, I can see the border. Are you using IE?) Awadewit | talk 22:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, IE. I'll look at it with FireFox in a minute. - Jeeny ^Talk 00:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm on Firefox now, and I do see the border. I don't see anything else wrong, though. - Jeeny ^Talk 00:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Weird. Whatever. Awadewit | talk 02:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• IE (which I use at work) does not pick up the coding that produces multiple columns in the footnote section. What an impoverished life we lead as a result of Bill Gates' business practices. Simmaren 12:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Can't you use Firefox at work? How ridiculous. Awadewit | talk 12:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman

Hi. I've proposed another hook at DYK, which I think is "hookier" than your suggestions. It's a delicate balance, writing hooks that are "hooky" without being irrelevant to their article; I hope you like mine. (Which of course you should tweak slightly if it needs it.)

Yes, that is good as well. It never really occurred to me that that would be interesting to people. I never know what interests people. :) Awadewit | talk 21:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the article itself— well, reading it, I can't help feeling that it's a little too dominated by the opinions of modern gender-studies scholars. I'd rather see it a little shorter, more factual in tone, and more grounded in the 18th century. (Plus, personally, I always prefer to hear works of literature discussed in literary terms rather than political, even where — as in this case — they are explicitly political themselves.) But, heh, my opinion on this subject doesn't really matter since I haven't had much involvement or experience in writing or improving long literature articles on the Wikipedia. Doops | talk 20:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I plan on removing some of the scholars' names as I go along to make the article easier to read (I usually start with a lot of quotes and then slowly remove them as I see that the scholars agree). I'm not sure how else to write the article, except using the "opinions of modern gender-studies scholars". That is who has written on the book, by and large. Also, no writing on literature is "factual", in the way you are suggesting. No (good) literature article can ever say, "this is what the book means", since there is no one meaning to any text. I'm not sure what distinction you are making between the literary and the political, unless you mean there should be more in the "Style" section. I would also like there to be more there, but there is not much to put there. Part of Wollstonecraft's "style" in The Wrongs of Woman is her sentimentality, but that is bound up with her political statements, so I thought that it would be better to discuss it under "Themes". Let me know what you think. I found this page particularly difficult to organize. Awadewit | talk 21:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As to length, hopefully good copy editing can cut it down in the future. Awadewit | talk 21:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I totally understand the limits of the word "factual" when writing about art; which is the main reason why despite my real-life interests in literature, music, architecture, and art I haven't done much with any of those subjects on the Wikipedia. How do you write a better-than-stub encyclopedia article in a field so open to interpretation? Kudos to you for trying!

Anyway, when I get the chance I'll reread the article and try to come up with more concrete and useful suggestions for you. Cheers, Doops | talk 21:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

E.T.

Just moving discussion here to talk page so the FAC doesn't get long. Thing is, Al Millar's pamphlet on E.T. almost started that whole ET=Jesus craze, and it's been mentioned in numerous books on Spielberg. It counts as reliable alongside all your suggested sources. Alientraveller 10:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Just recognize that it should be identified differently in the prose. Awadewit | talk 10:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Mary Wollstonecraft Featured Topic

I can probably help out with this. Just let me know what you're working on at the moment and I'll try to pitch in as I have time. Kaldari 15:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am currently working on Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman and Mary: A Fiction. Awadewit | talk 22:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

script image fix?

Iyadidit, Awadewit—I think the images go where they're supposed to now. This is a hallmark moment for the whole team over here at Scripts Designed to Annoy Hyperliterate Users. –Outriggr § 05:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't you mean "Hyper-aesthetically sensitive"? or "Obsessive"? :) Thanks so much. Like I said, just let me know what you want me to do in return. Awadewit | talk 05:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I first read "Do you mean"—pondered—then realized it says "Don't you mean"—and with that phrasing I now feel comfortable leaving the question _wink-wink unanswered. :) –Outriggr § 05:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Dashes, dates, and spaces

Regarding your comment here - I'll make you an offer. Should you be ready to submit a FAC, drop me another note on my talk page, and I will try to handle all the dashes, dates, spaces, and similar tweaks that may be asked for at the discussion. (Just don't submit more than one FAC at a time, please!) I'll view it as my own small contribution. I'm not as good with the "brilliant prose" requirement as you are, but I can probably handle the mechanical bits. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That is very kind of you. I should really learn to "play well with others", though. I thought that taking a break from FAC might help me do that. If I am still too frustrated to embark on an FAC in a few months, I might ask for your assistance. Again, thank you very much. That is the kind of collaboration I expected to find on wikipedia (but have rarely seen as of yet, unfortunately). Awadewit | talk 22:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps tangentially relevant: I've belatedly replied to the message you left on my talk page. -- Hoary 02:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive

A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 03:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

GAReview

Um, I think you forgot to remove the :{{GAReview}} since there is about 5 articles tagged by it. :) -Flubeca^Talk 20:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I am in the middle of reviewing those four articles. Awadewit | talk 00:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar Award

		The Excellent Userpage Award
		Your userpage is a work of art! Fantastically amazing. I hereby award you the Excellent User Page Barnstar. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 01:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman

On 12 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Excellent article, definitely deserves the lead spot :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I did a lot of last-minute work this morning so it would be ready. Awadewit | talk 11:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

British Museum GAC

Hi, I wasnt the one who submitted the GA of British Museum but I have been involved with trying to improve the article (with difficulty...) and agree with every point you raised in failing the article, with exception of one. You note that "The "Department of Asia" description needs to be fleshed out more. Compared to the other departments, it gets short-shrift." I would like you to please note that the department of Asia has its own SEPERATE article at British Museum Department of Asia. The Asia section (a paragraph and several images) serve to briefly highlight the department with the 'MAIN ARTICLE' link above to proceed to the article covering it. Perhaps you missed this, but it is policy for large articles to create new articles top reducer article length (what we did with the Asia Department). To expand the current section would remove the very point of creating a seperate article for the section in the first place. Could you therefore please remove your comment and we will endeavour to focus on the rest of your comments. Thank you. LordHarris 11:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't miss the link. Even when there is a fork, there is still supposed to be a summary of the forked article in the main article (see Isaac Newton for an example). What if readers don't read the fork? They will receive very little information on the Asia department. When I read that section, I had these thoughts:

• The editors don't care about the Asia department (for any number of reasons) and are thus relegating it to a few paltry lines.
• The editors are incapable of summarizing and instead have chosen to leave only a vague sentence that tells the reader nothing.
• The Asia department is not important to the British Museum.

How was I supposed to know which one it was, if not another option entirely? I believe that the objection is valid. Awadewit | talk 11:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, firstly I agree with your objection. I just wished you stated in your review something like "although there is a fork the summary is still not long enough". This would of avoided me making the presumption that you missed it. Secondly I do hope you dont think that my comments at the Elimination drive talk page were aimed solely at you after I posted the above comment about the British Museum! They were in fact aimed at Gosgoods comments at reviewing articles too quickly! Sorry if I made you think otherwise! LordHarris 12:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't necessarily think it was directed at anyone. I'm just defending a reviewing style that I feel would be more helpful to editors and beneficial to wikipedia overall. You will see my further comments on the page. Single-sentence reviews (that is usually what I get) aren't helpful. All articles (even FAs - gasp) can be improved. (I will clarify my comment at British Museum - sorry for the vagueness.) Awadewit | talk 12:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey thats fine, I prob should of started my talk comments on here by thanking you for taking the time to review it in the first place - thanks by the way. In regards to your comments about my reviewing on the elimination page youll find that my comments for the review are at Talk:Raising of school leaving age in the UK and not Talk:Raising of school leaving age as the article was recently split intwo. LordHarris 12:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. I was just clicking through the articles and going to their talk pages, as one would do. Awadewit | talk 12:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)