Jump to content

User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Peer review offer

It's a deal. Glancing at both The Age of Reason and your user page, you seem to be an erudite individual, from whom I would welcome a review of Transformer. My earlier intent had been to try to push Transformer through towards WP:FAC; although it's a long way from that in its present form, it would definitely benefit from another pair of eyes. Shall we give each other a week? Regards, — BillC talk 19:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I look forward to it. Awadewit | talk 22:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your comprehensive review of Transformer. At this very minute I haven't the time to respond in full, but I thank you for the effort you have spent on it. I'll respond in depth later today, and then start my work on The Age of Reason. Your edits did introduce a factual error in the article, but not to worry, this probably indicates where the original was not clear enough. — BillC talk 13:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I apologize. There is nothing more annoying than an editor making an article worse. Awadewit | talk 20:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten the deal we struck above. Wikipedia:Peer review/The Age of Reason wasn't on my watchlist, and I failed to notice that someone had already contributed there, and you had edited the article in response, before I made some minor (mostly format) edits to the article. I very much doubt that I will be able to remotely match Markus Poessel's comprehensive review, but a deal is a deal, and I will do my best to provide some thoughts on your article. Regards, and thanks for your patience, — BillC talk 22:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I only made a few minor changes to The Age of Reason. I was waiting to do the major changes until I had your review as well. Besides, I didn't want the page to be "under construction" as you were reading it. :) (Don't worry about the delay - I am caught up in other things anyway, at the moment.) Awadewit | talk 23:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

fac

Have you considered commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to general relativity? I believe you peer-reviewed the article. It needs help. Like 55% of everything on wikipedia, its livelihood is in danger due to arbitrary formalistic arguments... –Outriggr § 01:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

My frustration will be palpable to you in my length support. I tried to tone it down - I spent a while revising my tone. I'm not sure how successful I was. Awadewit | talk 06:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, good! –Outriggr § 07:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Many, many thanks, Awadewit, for your support. Seeing my first FAC become bogged down in this kind of discussion has certainly cured me from trying to write another "Introduction to..." in the foreseeable future, but I would like to see this one through. --Markus Poessel 10:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh no! I was afraid of that. I had no idea that anyone would oppose on the "introduction" grounds. It is just so ludicrous. I'm so very sorry. Please write the articles anyway (there is no reason the articles would have to go to FAC). At least, then there would be good "introductions" to quantum mechanics, etc. on wikipedia, even if they weren't rated what they should be. Your ability to clearly convey complex ideas is exceptional and I would hate to see it lost simply because of a few (ahem!) misguided reviewers. Awadewit | talk 10:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The whole FAC process is a common-sense free zone and WP's great embarassment as far as I'm concerned (wait until the copyediting fuhrers start insisting you format your references just the way they want them) - for what it's worth I made a representation to user:Raul654 at User_talk:Raul654#Interesting_FAC (I'm sure he hates people doing this). Unfortunately it sounds like he doesn't like the idea of introduction either.....Please don't be disheartened Markus, the project does need your talents - it just doesn't know it yet :-) --Joopercoopers 10:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
As I just mentioned on Raul's page, there are at least 450 Simpsons articles. Perhaps I should propose a merger of all 450? :) Awadewit | talk 11:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Ill advised I think, I wouldn't want to get the guy's back up or dis the work and preoccupations of others. The case for 'introductions' stands on it's own feet as far as I'm concerned. --Joopercoopers 11:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't really on the page. Well, maybe a little bit. I think the "introduction" is a solid article, too (obviously), but it bears thinking about that the objectors see a problem with two general relativity articles (a key scientific concept) but not with 450 Simpsons articles. I actually think that the Simpsons is a smart and influential show. That does not meant I think it deserves 450 separate articles. 450 would overwhelm even the most "curious" reader. Awadewit | talk 11:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I've been over-reacting a bit. Anyway, I guess my immediate goal should be to bring general relativity to FA status. If the articles are both excellent, but clearly different, that should carry some weight when it comes to the usefulness of "Introduction to...". Also, there's still much to do on the uncontroversial part of Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_accessible, namely making the lead sections of "unavoidably technical" sections generally accessible. Not to mention the great policy campaign "Save our introductions" I will need to start in case this FAC fails :-). Sorry to hear about User:Raul654, but still haven't given up hope. --Markus Poessel 18:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Update: The discussion has now reached the talk page for the guideline that permits "Introduction to...", here. --Markus Poessel 19:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

re: Peer reviews and copy edits

Thanks for the note. To date, I haven't strayed much beyond medical articles. I also review on featured list candidates. I haven't got the time to do all the things I'd like to at present. Expanding my role here is therefore unlikely for now.

I see that your The Age of Reason is currently sitting unloved at peer review. Looking very briefly at it, I see a level of writing skill well above mine. I'd only be able to give a general opinion really, and one from someone unfamiliar with both the topic and the kind of way it is handled on WP. If I get some time, I'll read it through. I've got the rest of that Autism article to review too... Colin°Talk 11:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand - one must draw a line in the sand somewhere. If you are bored some day, though, I would welcome even a "general opinion". I wrote my Master's thesis on The Age of Reason, so sometimes I am too close to it and the eighteenth-century in general to see how my articles read to non-specialists. I want them to be accessible, so I would appreciate knowing about anything that was confusing or poorly explained. (Thanks for the compliment on my writing. I appreciate it.) Awadewit | talk 11:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

GAC Reviewer of the Week

The Good Article Medal of Merit
Congratulations, I have chosen you as my GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 14/7/2007. Epbr123 10:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

thank you

The Special Barnstar
I'm awarding you this barn star as a gesture of appreciation for your contributions to helping me while I learn the ropes of wikipedia. Vandalfighter101 10:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

oops...my bad

oops my bad man...well you still deserve the Barnstar..youve prob earned it somewhere else lol...sorry bout that man.Vandalfighter101 11:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Be not conformed, but be ye... ;)

Fools rush in, etc. so I tackled Transformer today. I'm a little worried that I may have annoyed its principal author, although that could be just me being jumpy. I think it reads more clearly now, although there's probably a long way to go yet. Would you be so good as to read it again carefully, at least the first half that I changed? (Up to "Practical considerations") If you could flag parts that aren't transparent, we could work on those with Bill to make it all flow like mead into an eager student's brain. ;) By the way, you're doing great things with JJ; I've a bit more to add when I get a breather, but I foresee not for much longer. ;) Hoping all's well with you, Willow 21:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe that you would annoy anyone! I will read it after I read Introduction to general relativity. It might take me a day or two. Awadewit | talk 23:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. I also spruced up the introduction to general relativity with User:Markus Poessel's blessing, but I may have also introduced some glitches as well. Could you maybe scan it for anything too egregious, hiccups in style, grammar gaffes, logical lacunae, that sort of thing? The mood there is beginning to feel like the beginning of The Fall of the House of Usher, what with the merge and all. :(

I'm so unhappy about the FAC (what a terrible first FAC for Markus). My roommate and I represent exactly the two audiences that each article would appeal to, he general relativity, me introduction to general relativity. I don't understand the opposition at all. There are 450 Simpsons articles (at least). I really want to propose that merger. How much overlap do you think there is? :) But we can't have two on relativity... Awadewit | talk 23:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to throw everything up on Johnson, so that I can attend to the writing. But I just found a new book (Braithwaite). I may have to take a break. I promised to help someone with a Jane Austen rewrite. That undertaking is huge, but the current page is atrocious, so I feel that between the two of us, we might be able to accomplish something there. I shudder to think of all the "Janeites", though. Awadewit | talk 23:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

feedback?

Hi Awadewit - Would you have time to comment on Ulysses (poem) now? I'd appreciate your feedback as we discussed earlier. I don't know what to think of the article, but I take solace in the fact that writing a long article on a 70-line poem within the strictures of wikipedia guidelines is somewhat experimental. Nor have I done everything I wanted to do, but I need some input if I'm going to continue. Comments and questions:

  • Pretend there are a few more paragraphs under "Structure and synopsis" which give a "101" summary of the narrative, with a few explanatory or interpretive notes for the odd phrase in the poem.
  • It seems very quote-heavy. I don't know how to avoid that without spending much more time on any one viewpoint. It may be that I lack the breadth to reformulate, generalize, etc.
  • Referencing style is mixed, and would be torn apart by some . :) Incidentally, I now understand why some of the lit folks hate wiki-style inline citations.
  • It is difficult to know how much to explicitly attribute viewpoints. Some are common enough not to be attributed. I see no way to write in a "neutral" style for some issues of interpretation without saying "So-and-so found..." and "According to So-and-so...". And, when that is done, does the whole paragraph come across as the attributed party's view, or the article's view?
  • Structure?

Go easy though—my ed. is not in the humanities. :) Thanks, –Outriggr § 05:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me about a week? I'm immersed in introduction to general relativity and transformer at the moment, both difficult articles for me. This will be a pleasure to read and review, since I will know what I am talking about (to an extent, anyway). By the way, you have hit on the major problems with writing a lit article. I will respond to those issues as well, although none of the solutions I have discovered are ideal, I'm afraid. Awadewit | talk 08:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Don't look too long at those articles, though... between Tesla and the space-time continuum, we wouldn't want you turning into Doc Brown (knew there'd be an article). :) –Outriggr § 02:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking at the article now. Do you mind if I make some rather substantial changes to the prose? You can always revert whatever you don't like. Awadewit | talk 01:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
OK. –Outriggr § 02:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you vey much! I'll review, respond to, and take action on your insights soon. And don't worry, I will figure out my percentage on my own. :) P.S. Mirroring my attraction to the poem, you interpreted my writing in this inline comment the same way the poem has been interpreted: "vague - 'to continue' what? can you be more precise?" No Penelope, I'm just going out! :) –Outriggr § 06:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

:) Thanks. Like I said, I will try to answer your more general questions on your talk page. I just need a breather. Awadewit | talk 06:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Solon Quickfail

Hi Awadewit

If you had read the Solon article attentively, you would have seen that it aims at a balanced up-to-date scholarly treatment. Yes, there are a lot of citations of primary texts, but there are also a lot of citations of scholarly texts. The dominant message in the article is this - we know almost nothing for certain about Solon. That's a pretty conventional view among scholars. You will not find that I argue in favour of any particular interpretation of historical facts. This much is original - the language I used. How could it be otherwise? It includes some rhetorical flourishes, I admit, but originality in style is not original research. Anyhow, I spent a long time fixing that article. It's a good, well-balanced presentation of a fascinating period in history and your opinion of it is ill-considered. Lucretius 10:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

See my response on the Solon talk page. I'm sure that we know very little about Solon, but you need to cite what scholars do agree on and cite them saying we know very little. When I as a reader look at the article, I cannot know if it is supported by scholarship. Many, if not most, of its major claims are sourced to ancient sources (many others are not cited at all). What am I supposed to think, but that it is original research? That is the logical conclusion. I agree with you that it is a fascinating period of history, but neither effort nor an interesting topic makes an article GA, only fulfilling the criteria does. As I say on the talk page, feel free to appeal this decision at GA review if you still feel it is in error after looking at my reply on the talk page. Awadewit | talk 10:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Useful information about the UK. When did it officially start then. Also the binding element has been used by many editors to indicate how it has been made available to date. I.e. not just when first published. Are you proposing that this (along with the other infobox fields) should only relate to the first edition. It would be more consistent I must admit. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  • See history of the United Kingdom for an explanation. The most common date is 1800 (Act of Union 1800). I quote from the article: "These two Acts merged the Kingdom of Ireland and the unified Kingdom of Great Britain, (being itself a merger of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland under the Act of Union 1707), to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." Hope that helps. Awadewit | talk 11:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought that the infobox was only related to the first edition. I can't imagine it making sense any other way. I once saw someone add "available on audiobook" to an eighteenth-century novel article. That is confusing, since the box also said the novel was published in 1790-whatever, when audiobooks were unavailable. I don't think that we should cite modern editions in the infobox (imagine all of the ISBNs for some books - you can't leave any out, you see, because that would be privileging one edition over another). Awadewit | talk 11:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair-Use Rationale for Guardian (band) pictures

I added fair-use rationales for the band pictures and then I see you reverted my taking the warnings out of the discussion page. I was just curious...am I supposed to leave those there even though the situation has been resolved? Is there another way I'm supposed to remove them? It just seemed pointless to have them there. Please reply on my page. Mcflytrap 19:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You must have me confused with someone else. I do not know of what you speak and have never heard of this band. Awadewit | talk 20:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment needed

Hi Awadewit, I've been working on the image for a few days. I just wanted for you to comment on this one I'm working on, so I don't spend too much more time, as I have so far, for naught. This is a bit rough, and it's in PNG format with transparent background. You will see it's not finished, as there's minute detail to work on, but did not want to proceed unless this is what you are looking for. Here's the link and let me know what you think. I have others saved, with little details changed. I don't want to keep working on it, without a graphic pen, and only my mouse to draw outlines, which is somewhat daunting, frustrating, and tedious, if it is not what you want. Let me know. Again, don't hold back your opinion or wishes. I need them if I am to succeed. Oops, here's the link for your critique [1] - Jeeny Talk 20:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am looking for! Awadewit | talk 04:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Great! I'll finish working on it tomorrow. :). Do you like the PNG format with transparent background? - Jeeny Talk 04:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean; the background isn't white? What will the background look like in an image box in the article? Awadewit | talk 04:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It will look white in the article because of the Wiki codes. but, I could add a colored background that matches the article background, if you want. With a transparent background, those who click on the image to enlarge it will see the transparency, with the gray and white blocks. Thus be able to use it with any other background, if one chooses to copy and modify it. - Jeeny Talk 05:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that the transparent is best, then, don't you? (Thanks for explaining!) Awadewit | talk 05:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and you're welcome. :) - Jeeny Talk 05:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

How's this? Image:Gillray New Morality portion.png - Jeeny Talk 00:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Fabulous. I have installed it on the Joseph Johnson page. Thanks so much! Let me know what I can do for you in return. Awadewit | talk 10:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Great! OK, another question: Do you want that huge ugly frame around Johnson's portrait? Image:JosephJohnson.jpeg. I can at least cut the outside frame, and leave the inside portion of the double frame. Or remove it altogether, or add a nicer one. lol If you actually do want a frame. I just hate that frame, it's too contemporary for the portrait, IMO. But if it's significant to the portrait, then I guess it will have to stay? - Jeeny Talk 16:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it's bad, too. Let's cut it. I prefer everything sans frame. Awadewit | talk 16:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Done! Gosh that was ugly. :) - Jeeny Talk 17:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 23 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thoughts on the Education of Daughters, 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.

--JayHenry 15:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Christie

Hello. I noticed you reverted my recent edit to the above article so I took a look at WP:DATE as highlighted in the edit summary. I get the impression that linking year dates is a question of individual preference. It's something I personally find useful in articles as I tend to use Wikipedia a lot for research. Sadly though, I might be in the minority with this opinion. Cheers Paul20070 12:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Might you explain how you find the linked years useful? I'm curious, because the vast majority of the "year" pages are terrible. Many have factual errors (I just fixed one today). Also, you should know that most GAC and FAC reviewers discourage the linking of individual years. Awadewit | talk 13:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess I was right about being in the minority on this. I find them useful because they sometimes speed up the time it takes for me to get to information, particularly if I want to know about events which occurred in the same year. But then again I guess I could just type the year into the search box, and obviously if the year articles are that bad then it's not such a useful thing to link articles to them. Paul20070 17:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Nomination fail

Many thanks for taking the time to review the Institut Le Rosey article. The subject of the article is extremely difficult to find information on. I can definitely improve the article's information on Le Rosey's academics, but as for student life, school history, and athletic programs, the public information that exists is already found in the article. Another Wikipedian has already moved the list of alumni to its own article. If the article does not have enough information available, is it ineligible for GA status? Thank you for your time, -- AJ24 21:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC).

That is an interesting question. There are clearly articles that cannot reach FA; I don't know what the consensus is on articles that appear to be incomplete but actually use all of the available sources reaching GA. Personally, I would say that such articles should not be GA, but that is my own opinion and I don't know if it really applies in this instance. You might post this question to the GA talk page and see what the general consensus is. Awadewit | talk 01:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Also it appears that a lot of the info is only coming from the school itself which severely hamstrings the possibilities.

DYK

Updated DYK query On July 27, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Botanic Garden, 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.

Thankyou Awadewit for another extremely well written and comprehensive article. You are really raising the bar for all articles at FAC, GAC and DYK. Enjoy the pictured slot, you deserve it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

James Edward Smith

Hi Awadewit. The image you added look great, good job finding it. I plan to improve the article soon, he was an interesting fellow. Regards, Fred ☻ 12:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that someone is going to improve it; I agree that he is very interesting. I linked to him from Joseph Johnson (publisher), another interesting eighteenth-century figure. I have a few more images, but they won't fit on the page right now. If you want, I can upload them for when the page needs them and link to them from the talk page. One is the title page of English Botany, the other is one of Sowerby's illustrations. Let me know. Awadewit | talk 12:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice one. There are pages and categories for Smith and Sowerby at commons, you will also find a page for one of their collaborations. Not my doing, but I plan to make categories and pages for the different works, such as English Botany. This work alone contains two and a half thousand images. I have tried to include as much info as possible, copy what you can from the source please. The provenance will become important as the articles expand. I will spare you the details, but for example; later reprints were not hand coloured and may not be drawn by the paterfamilias of the Sowerby family. The title page is preferred in the infobox for a book, so that could replace the current image immediately. I found a site, but I could not view the scans. I would have uploaded the recent image to commons anyway, the title page would be perfect. Check at commons to see if it already there, I upload uncropped images and crop them when needed. Regards, Fred ☻ 13:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a big project! I uploaded those two, so they are available now. Awadewit | talk 13:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
And they look terrific. Mr Smith would say they add nothing to the description ;-) The title page supports the part about Smith's name not appearing until volume four. The article, English Botany, deserved a gallery for your upload. I can post an update for all this, if you are interested. Sorry about the redlink category, I will sort it out. Regards, Fred ☻ 14:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Something for you...

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
For your assistance in copyediting and making other improvements to Battle of Arras (1917), now a featured article, I award you this barnstar. Carom 05:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"Leave me a new message link" and Yamaka122

I already answered this in my talk, but I will put here too for its problems. In User talk:Yamaka122 (who is a Admin - I think), there is a "You can click here to leave me a new message. I will reply on this page unless you request otherwise." link, but that link edits yours talk page (yes, THIS one where you're reading me). Wildie 19:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It all makes sense now! Awadewit | talk 19:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed it, so now it is Yamaka122's talk page, not yours. He apparently used your message and forgot to change the name. LOL. Oh well. Fixed now. - Jeeny Talk 19:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So sorry about that and all the confusion it caused Yamaka122 ...:) 20:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hey Awadewit, could you do me a quick favour? It simply involves taking a look at an article. I've recently fixed it up a bit, but there are not that many sources out there. I was wondering how much more improvement you think it needs before I submit to GAC. Göttingen Seven. Thanks, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No probs!

I see what happened, dear Awadewit - apparently, we need a little tablework at the "Quotes" subsection, to display the framed paintings properly, maybe in a column of two. The spacing between rows needs adjustment as well, so if you give me a few hours (well, make that Saturday ;) I'll take care of the problem! Love, Phaedriel - 21:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah! a table. I didn't think of that. I tried to learn how to adjust things just by looking at your code, but that is difficult. Are there pages anywhere that explain wiki-code like this, or is this not even wiki-code? Thanks so much. Awadewit | talk 02:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well done

The Barnstar of High Culture
This barnstar is awarded to Awadewit for his FA and GA work on classical era topics such as Mary Wollstonecraft and Joseph Priestley.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Updated DYK query On July 23, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Some Thoughts Concerning 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.

Thanks again Awadewit. You set a really high standard for new articles. Keep it up. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

GR etc.

The Cherry Impact Event Award, given to Awadawit for demonstrating how the Arts and Sciences can interact positively with striking results for the benefit of everyone.

Hi - this award was created fairly recently using a fantastic image by Ling Nut. Thanks for all your great comments at Introduction to general relativity and its FAC: I was as shocked as you by the opposition to "Introduction" articles. As for IGR itself, I found your inline comments in the article particularly helpful in my recent edits, although I am sure I did not do them justice. Well, everyone is going through the article again, and I will be happy to participate.

Even more, it was your ability to pick out the weak and wordy sentences that I found most helpful. Geometry guy 20:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

On another matter, Freemasonry is currently up for Good Article Review. You made a lot of helpful comments there, but they seemed to be ignored, and you dropped the issue (is that a fair summary?). The article is still weak in its coverage, verifiability and neutral point of view, and I expect it will be delisted. Do you have any further comments? Geometry guy 18:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Oh, no. I, and I believe Jayron32, spent quite a while trying to explain the problem of NPOV and reliable sources. Did I pass the article? That may have been a weak moment in which I just didn't want to go on with the whole issue. As much as I would like to be persistent and try again, the editors seem very entrenched. If you think my posting at GA/R would be useful, let me know. Awadewit | talk 20:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you passed it first, then commented on the weaknesses of the article in the hope that the editors would respond positively. They were polite but unmoving and a long debate followed. Eventually you were accused of anti-Masonry by one of the editors: I'm not surprised you backed off. Jayron32 has commented at the GA/R. As I say, it seems to be a pretty clear delist, and you don't need to comment, but I thought you might like to know. Geometry guy 20:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
No need to apologize for generosity and optimism, even on wikipedia :-) Geometry guy 12:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Gândirea

Hi, and a long overdue apology for the delays. I have applied your suggestions for Gândirea, with a few exceptions that I hope you will find tolerable. I have restructured the text to indicate what quotes are about, thus allowing me to identify the terms used and link to them, without altering/interpreting the quotes by linking in them. There are a few exceptions, where I just could not rephrase — however, as we stand, the terms linked inside quotes can only be read on way (words such as Rome, xenophobia etc). The other exception concerns your suggestion about summarizing the cultural trends involved in one separate section; I avoided doing that, as it would have harmed the flow of the text (it would have been inevitable not to repeat that info in the text, since the main section details stuff in chronological order, and since the sheer variety would make any such summary hard to follow without clarifying the chronology). Instead, I summarized as best I could as the terms showed up in the chronological section. Dahn 07:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed the template at the top of your page. You can reply anywhere, but please leave a short note on my page if you are planning to reply here (I have many pages on my watchlist, and will watch user talk pages only if it proves really necessary). Thank you, and looking forward to your comments. Dahn 07:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

An informal review would be good for now. I'll leave the GA renomination up to you, if you think it meets the criteria (I was quite surprised that it was nominated in the first place). Dahn 19:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me a day or two, then? Awadewit | talk 20:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. Any time will do. (I should add: though I am currently watching this page, I would appreciate it if you drop a note on my page when you have comments - just so I don't miss them by accident - or post your reply on the article's talk page. And thank you) Dahn 00:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I followed your suggestions. Can you please check it when you have the time? Regards, Dahn 15:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I read the article yesterday and today - my review is on the talk page. Awadewit | talk 15:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. I didn't notice it. I'll answer there. Dahn 15:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Help with an article?

Hello, Roger said you might have a little time to check my grammar and make my article read a bit better. I would be very thankful. Link Bmedley Sutler 09:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I will look at it either today or tomorrow. Awadewit | talk 11:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiki editing tool

I wondered if you were using a wiki editing tool like wikEd. It makes reading wiki-code much easier because everything is color-coded. Awadewit | talk 18:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not but I recognize a good idea - thanks. I do use Firefox so it's available. I'm going to experiment with this. Simmaren 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Fail on New York University

I just wanted clarification on two of the points you mentioned in the comments on NYU's talk page regarding the GA fail:

  1. I would suggest adding more on the university's budget and fundraising. Although this is not the most exciting element of a university for students, it is vital to a university's livelihood and often a matter of hot dispute. Also, any recent major gifts should probably be listed.
Can you give me an example of another university page where there is a section or mention of budget and fundraising? I found an endowment section in one article, but most articles I looked at either dispersed it throughout the article, or didn't mention it (and I looked at featured articles). Maybe I'm unsure what would be good to place in the article.
No, unfortunately, I cannot give you an example. It would seem that many editors don't include this necessary section (I think that is because most editors are students or alumni of the school rather than employees; faculty tend to be more aware of these issues, I think). Endowment figures are a necessity, any stories regarding the investment of said endowment (some universities have had conflict over this or taken political stands by not investing money in particular companies), actual budget figures (what is the yearly budget of the university), interesting figures (what is spent on research or something like that), fundraising campaigns (all universities have various ongoing fundraising campaigns - that is almost all presidents do these days), any large gifts made to the university (Yale recently received a multi-million dollar gift for their music school, for example), concerns about tuition hikes, cost of attending the university, financial aid available to students. These are the topics that I can think of immediately. I hope that helps. Awadewit | talk 12:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. As a graduate student myself, I was disappointed not to see any mention of NYU's labor disputes. They made national news, so I thought they might be mentioned (especially when the suicides were). Perhaps this is my own bias, though. :)
Are you referring to the graduate teaching assistants that took place in the past couple years?
Yes. Awadewit | talk 12:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

-- Noetic Sage 03:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Evesham & Marie Bashkirtseff

  • ... an unlikely pairing of topics...
  • I saw your review of Battle of Evesham.. I was the first GA reviewer. I tried to help out a bit — added a map, satellite coords., sourced casualty est., rewrote one para. — but I don't have time to do more.. but the orig. editor seems to be hard at work...
  • Marie Bashkirtseff seems to be up your alley (though the time period is not precisely matched with your interests). The article could use the help of someone who is familiar with related topics (he said, hinting...)  :-)
  • I wish I could help you more. I'm afraid that I know very little about Russian literature. My expertise lies in British literature. For interesting historical reasons, most "English literature" students study only British and American literature. Russian literature is covered in Russian language departments or Comparative Literature departments. There are very few "Literature" departments (too bad - such departments would be fascinating to work in). I assume Linguistics has its oddities like this as well. If you want me to copy edit or review the article at any point, I could certainly do that. Awadewit | talk 12:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your GA-review of the Battle of Evesham. With good help from Ling.Nut, I've tried to implement the suggested changes. I've expanded the lead and done some copyediting. There's also a map now, and at least an estimate for the death toll on the baronial side. Hope this helps! Lampman 13:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

HP 1 GA review

I have few comments about your review of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film).

  • Hardly any film articles have themes or cinematic style sectons (FAs like Jurassic Park for example) and I don't think they are a requirement for GA status articles. A majority of films, don't actually have prominent themes, and I don't think this one really does, its just a film adaption of a book.
  • I am not going to enter into this debate with you again. There are no particular GA requirements for film articles - they must fulfill the "broad coverage" requirement like all other GAs. That means that they must include sections on all major aspects of a film. Perhaps the most important aspects of a film are its themes. I have tried to explain this to you before and failed. Whether or not you agree with this, this is the opinion of both film critics and film scholars. Since we are supposed to rely on experts' opinions in wikipedia articles and not our own opinions, these topics must be included. I will state once again that all films have themes. Whether they have derived them from other films or books is irrelevant - those themes are still in the film. Awadewit | talk 15:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The most interesting part of a film is how it got made. Alientraveller 15:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
That is simply your opinion and your opinion is not supposed to be the basis of a wikipedia article. See WP:NPOV. Awadewit | talk 15:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Umm why did you write that as if you'd had a debate with me about themes before? As far as I can remember I have never spoken to your before in my life, and you definitly havn't reviewed a film article I have worked on. And when have I ever said that themes are not an important aspect of a film article? Gran2 15:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I thought I was responding to Alientraveler, who I have had extensive discussions with on this topic at the FAC for E.T. and, I believe, at the film guidelines page; at this point, it seems fruitless to renew those conversations with him/her. If you, Gran2, would also like to debate this topic, I am willing to do so. (It is hard to see who is writing what comments now - whoever wrote A majority of films, don't actually have prominent themes, and I don't think this one really does, its just a film adaption of a book, for example, is simply incorrect.) Awadewit | talk 15:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
You might want to work here instead: Harry Potter#Themes. Alientraveller 15:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
See my GA review of that page. Awadewit | talk 15:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Rotten Tomatoes is used in almost film article, I don't think there has ever been a problem with it.

Anyway, I did not nominate the article, as I did not, and still don't think its GA standard. So these were just a few concerns I had with your review. But it has been helpful, and thank you for your review. Gran2 14:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines has Rotten Tomatoes as a staple link. Alientraveller 14:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes is a highly reliable site. Alientraveller 15:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Lol. Alientraveller 15:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

I am not sure why you are contesting Rotten Tomatoes as a reliable source. The site is listed in the WP:MOSFILMS guideline, which means consensus was reached to include it as an appropriate source. Furthermore, the website has been reported in the media multiple times, as seen in this Google News Archive Search. Furthermore, CNN has covered Rotten Tomatoes' report of the best and worst films of the first half of 2007. Is there still an issue of the site's reliability? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Just because a consensus was reached doesn't mean that the correct consensus was reached. Also, wikipedia has higher standards for sourcing than the media (most unfortunately - the media should be more responsible).
  • From WP:V#Sources: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. . . . In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text. - I am ready to hear to how rottentomatoes fits this definition. If it does, I am willing to accept it as a source, but so far, I cannot see that it does. Awadewit | talk 16:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Some questions: How does rottentomatoes reach its "freshness rating"? How is that number computed? (I am skeptical of that number because I have seen many reviews given a "rotten" picture that are positive and a "fresh" picture that are negative.) Is there any oversight of this site - or is it just the rottentomatoes people ranking the reviews? What role do their commercial interests play in their ranking of movies? To what extent are they beholden to their advertisers - the movie studios? These are all questions that greatly concern me.) Awadewit | talk 16:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with being a newb: Rotten Tomatoes is one of the most authoriative film sites on the internet, its foundations based on reliable sources. It admittedly shows bias to internet-only reviews, but that's fine for newer films, and certainly how an old film is perceived: I failed Dr No once as it had no reviews from 1962. It also shows no bias to the studios: numerous blockbusters get "rotten" every year, and I would say the site is a bit too harsh... but that's critics for you. Alientraveller 16:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

  • It is clear that it quotes reliable sources (film reviewers from newspapers and magazines), but it is "freshness rating" that I want to know more about (since that is what is often quoted from there). How is that calculated? Quoting a review from rottentomatoes is one thing, but quoting their "freshness rating" is quite another thing indeed. Awadewit | talk 16:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that the "Reception" section on Dr. No should be greatly expanded. I failed it, too. It has now passed, sadly. I think the editors just kept reposting it until someone passed it. It failed three times before it passed in a very short period of time. Awadewit | talk 16:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict, as I was researching) The business models for Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic (a similar site) can be understood here. For Rotten Tomatoes, the site's criteria is outlined here and here. Rotten Tomatoes has also been covered by independent news sources, seen here. From WP:V, "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context." In terms of popular media, these ratings can be considered appropriate. In addition, it may be relevant to point out that Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are not affiliated with each other. Coverage about the response to a film should also go beyond to the ratings of these sites. References like awards and nominations or academic studies are welcome to explore how a film was received. Films are not only art-based; they are business-based as well. I understand your desire for a film's thematic impact, but business is another driving aspect of films' productions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you. That is very helpful. I now think that it is less sketchy than before and would endorse its use. And, by the way, I fully endorse the discussion of a film's "business and marketing" side. I have never suggested otherwise. In fact, I believe that "business" concerns often affect a film's content (one famous example: the ending to The Piano was changed after test audiences reacted negatively to the suicide). I would actually endorse much more discussion of a film's financing and advertising campaigns in film articles. It seems to me that most of the film articles I read on wikipedia have only a superficial discussion of this topic (while they have no discussion of themes or artistry). Many of the "production" and "reception" sections I have seen contain extensive details that a fan would be interested in, such as filming locations. Truly addressing the "business" side would involve extensive consideration of which studio produced the film and why. That I have rarely (if ever) seen. Awadewit | talk 17:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I have tried to cover the business angle as much as possible with future films, since academic studies of a film will not surface for some time after its release. (I keep trying to find references for The Fountain (film), but I've had great difficulty as it was only released last November 2006.) I usually try to trace the development history of a project, as references covering it are more immediate. A couple of examples where I've attempted to do this are American Gangster and Watchmen (film) (though I hope someone can write a revised comprehensive history of the latter film; I'd rather move away from websites). Another interesting example that I covered is the reason for the release of 3:10 to Yuma (2007 film). I hope to follow that up with some independent discussion of the release date change. I've been trying to approach a couple of older film articles thematically, collecting references at User:Erik/Fight Club references and User:Erik/Dark City. It's obviously more heavy than my routine of adding production detail, but I hope to include the information somehow. I might be coming to you in the near future to ask about how to best format the information, such as, should I lead with the author/journal name, or should I just plunge into the academic study? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The Fountain (film) is excellent in its interweaving of business and art. Details such as the producer agreed to cut scenery in order to make the movie are crucial to an understanding of the film as a whole. These sections are excellent - you should suggest such improvements to the "James Bond" and "Film" project overall. Editors should be aware that such sections can be written and what kinds of details they can include. You have partially restored my faith in the film pages. Thank you. Awadewit | talk 17:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean when you ask "should I lead with the author/journal name, or should I just plunge into the academic study" - do you mean, should you credit the author in the prose of the article? Awadewit | talk 17:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
That's what I mean. Should it be formatted as, "Loyalty serves as a theme," or "According to <author>, loyalty serves as a theme"? I was going to ask later because I don't plan to work in the academic studies just yet, but I guess I wasn't sure how to attribute the information from these references. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
That's actually a very tricky question. I use "Loyalty is one the primary themes of this movie" if multiple authors say it is (that's why it is important to read a lot of scholarship and a lot of reviews - you have to find out what the most common interpretation of the film is). When I am using a quotation, I tend to cite the author in the prose: Smith, a film scholar, argues that "loyalty is the most important theme" is this movie. The tricky part is knowing when to ascribe an interpretation to someone because it s/he is known for that interpretation. A scholarly career rests on whether or not other scholars accept your idea - if it is a really important idea or interpretation, other scholars will usually attribute it to the first person to write about it. The idea "belongs" to that person, in a way. You can usually tell this from the scholarship because others will continually say "Smith's groundbreaking reading of" this movie or something to that effect. You can also do something like this: "One school of thought on this movie suggests that it is feminist because it has a strong female character while another school argues that the elements of that character undercut the film's feminist potential." That works when there are competing interpretations that contradict each other and no one interpretation is the "standard". I hope that helps somewhat. Awadewit | talk 18:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Why doesn't production count as art? Alientraveller 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I would imagine that an analogy would be what techniques are used to create a painting, which takes more of a background to what the painting really means thematically and artistically. I think that coverage of a film's production is more relevant with films being very much put across by businesses, but obviously, in cases like The Searchers (film), the lasting impact is how scholarship has received the film as an art. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It really all depends on the way you talk about it. If, for example, an article discusses how John Williams was hired to write a soundtrack and he recorded it and such-and-such a place and time and was paid however millions of dollars, that is not a discussion of the art of the soundtrack. There is no discussion there of the music itself and what it conveys or how it conveys those ideas. So, for example, what is the musical difference between the Imperial theme in Star Wars and the Luke theme? If a soundtrack consists of classical music or popular music, those choices would need to be analyzed - why were particular songs chosen to be part of the soundtrack? Film scholars and some good film reviewers address these questions. (Think of the DVD releases that don't have popular songs in them in anymore because studios didn't want to pay for the copyright or could not obtain the copyright - Married with Children is a classic example. The opening song is no longer "Love and Marriage..." because they couldn't pay for the rights. Audiences have a strong association between that song and that show now. What happens when it is changed? These are not insignificant questions.) A popular trick often used in beginning film classes to demonstrate the importance of music is to play one particular scene from Dr. Strangelove without the music and ask the students what they think the scene means. Then, they watch the scene with the music - their interpretations change drastically. Music can make a scene funny or sad - changing the music or eliminating the music changes the mood of the scene dramatically. If you have the capability, watch a movie without the musical accompaniment sometime. Or, watch a silent movie. It is a very different experience. Awadewit | talk 17:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To me, the artistic aspects of a film are just as important as the business aspects because it is the art that viewers experience in the theater. Of course their perceptions of that art are shaped by things like marketing, which is why it is important to discuss those topics, but to ignore the film itself and only concentrate on the peripherals of its production and reception denies that films are works of art - great or not. Awadewit | talk 17:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Fountain

You don't have to worry about answering my question right now. When I find the time to incorporate the academic studies for articles like Fight Club and Dark City, I'll come here and ask, then, if that's alright. Also, thank you for your commendation of The Fountain -- it was the first article I truly started on Wikipedia, and I've tried to see it through. I wish it had more academic interpretations, though; I've encountered numerous attempts to add OR interpretations to the article, as it's a film that could be very deeply explored in different ways. Happy editing! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I read your suggestion above and shall take heed when I add the referenced information. Many thanks! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You're welcome. I would be happy to help you out when the time comes. By the way, you should know that academic criticism takes a while to get published - several years, usually. So, if someone wrote an article on The Fountain immediately after its release, it would probably not get published until at least 2009, at the very earliest. Awadewit | talk 18:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
From my research for academic studies of films in the recent past and before then, I've noticed that kind of time frame. I guess my work on future/recent films will have to lack the academic criticism for some time. Do you have any suggestions on how to keep up with published academic criticism, especially in relation to films? In following film headlines, I tend to provide headlines on the talk pages of film articles not on my watchlist. I'd like to do the same with journals on films if possible. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, the only way to really keep up is by subscribing to the major film journals, but that is expensive. Do you have access to databases like JSTOR and MLA? Checking them every so often can be helpful. I don't think that any of the major film journals are available freely online, but I might be wrong about that. Awadewit | talk 19:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I have access to JSTOR, but not sure about MLA. I have a university account, so I can access quite a few databases. I was just asking to see if there was something like a report, "So-and-so journal contains criticism on the following films..." I've already been trying the rudimentary approach, and I guess I'll be keeping it up. Thanks, anyway. Have a good day! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
If you have a university account, you have access to MLA. It is the database for "literature" articles (it also includes a lot on film). Unfortunately, there is no such summary report. Wouldn't we all love it if there were! Nice to meet you, by the way. Awadewit | talk 19:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

List of works by Joseph Priestley

Awadewit, I'm sorry you've had a hard time on FLC. It certainly wasn't my intention to give you a hard time. I've seen your article-work before so knew you produced top-quality content. I've already made comments about the novel aspects of this list wrt to FL. Indeed, you admit yourself "I am unsure if this is the kind of list usually featured". To which we all reply, "Yes, we're unsure too." :-) I am concerned that at one point in the discussion, you asked if I "consider[ed] this page a "data dump" or "trivia" that has no encyclopedic value?" It really distresses me that you might have thought I was was disparaging your list that that extent. If my tone or clumsy writing has made you feel bad, I sincerely apologise.

  • Hmm. I didn't really see anybody saying that they thought the list shouldn't be featured because of some inherent trait. I interpreted the comments/criticism as addressing small problems, not conceptual problems. Since I have never been to FLC before, perhaps I interpreted these suggestions incorrectly. Awadewit | talk 18:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This list falls into the 1.a.3 category in the criteria, and we just haven't had many of those. I don't know whether I speak for others here, but my worry when introducing that category was that we'd get lists of trivia or data-dumps that had no encyclopaedic value. Without the navigational linking, it has got to be that bit special, I think. - This is what you wrote. Since you didn't say that you felt that the list under debate was useful, I was concerned that perhaps you were rethinking your position. Also, I myself don't think that this list is anything "special" - I think it is a standard tool for talking about authors - so I became concerned that it would not meet this "special" criteria. Don't worry - your tone was not a problem. I have noticed that comments and criticisms are frequently misinterpreted on wikipedia - it is hard to read for tone with so little text and without knowledge of the writer. Awadewit | talk 18:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to improve my reviewing/commenting style, so would appreciate some feedback. As an explanation, I came across your nomination at the weekend and didn't have the time to sit down and review it. Then you got a big fat oppose as your first response. I know myself how dispiriting that is (doubly-so if you feel it is unjustified and picky). I've had exactly (really, exactly) the same thing happen to me. You looked like you might withdraw so I rushed off a quick almost-support. I didn't want to go with a firm support as I hadn't checked it over.

  • I was rather disheartened by that first oppose, but I have had far worse experiences, let me tell you. I have recently had so many bad experiences with the MOS-police over at FAC that I have formed a partnership with someone else. S/he is going to deal with all of the dash, etc. complaints and I am going to deal with the content complaints with articles that I submit to FAC. During my last FAC, someone opposed on dashes and date styles alone. That is why I am kind of burned out on the whole FA process. To spend months writing an article (I rarely have any substantial help constructing articles that I work on) and then have someone oppose because of a personal stylistic issue is extremely frustrating. My frustration level only rises when I see the poorly written and researched articles that do pass, sometimes very easily. I thought FLC might be different, but I guess not. It was kind of you to offer the "leaning support" at the beginning - you could not have done more, not having read the article! Awadewit | talk 18:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I managed to return to this list today and tried to help explain some of the difficulty FL-regulars might have. It is interesting that the only FL-regulars were me and Circeus. Hoary was invited by you, so I guess you've got yourself to blame for any trouble there ;-).

  • I invited Hoary because I invited BillDeanCarter. We have previously engaged in debates on how lists of works should be formatted. I pretty much knew that BillDeanCarter would support, since we agree a lot, while I knew that Hoary would have a different opinion. I didn't think it was right to solicit opinions only from people I knew would support. Awadewit | talk 18:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I ever insisted on you making a change. I really was just trying to offer up suggestions that you should be free to ignore and not worry too much about justifying why they aren't possible or a good idea. Sometimes I write "Please feel free to ignore", but not this time. Was it exasperating to have to deal with them? Could I have rephased them differently or are there some you think I should have kept to myself? I'm glad the list is illustrated now. Perhaps you think it is just cosmetic?

  • Your suggestions were fine. I happen to think that the illustrations are just cosmetic for this kind of article. Others, such as the Joseph Priestley article itself, I would agree with you. But your suggestions were not onerous and I am happy to oblige other viewpoints when I feel that they have a reason behind them. Awadewit | talk 18:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with the remaining time for your nomination. BTW: under what section on Wikipedia:Featured lists do you think it should appear? Colin°Talk 17:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"Language and literature", don't you think? Awadewit | talk 18:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Original research

I'm interested in your comments on Talk:List of works by Joseph Priestley regarding original research. I just don't see the ban on collating information into a list, when done objectively. As long as you don't advance some opinion based on the list you created. Which part of WP:OR do you think bans this? It would affect many of our Featured Lists, which are impressive partly because the editor has researched entries from multiple sources. Indeed, some of our lists that are merely scraped off a website and reformatted are IMO lesser works.

Surely research is not the thing we should fear? It is when the "facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments" come solely from within the heads of our editors.

Cheers, Colin°Talk 17:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Colin, I'm looking at your userpage now and I think that perhaps our difference of opinion may have something to do the science/humanities divide. In my view (and in fact in the view of most literary critics, historians, philosophers, etc.), there really is no such thing as "objective" when it comes to commentary, even commentary as seemingly simple as a list of works. The decision, for example, to divide the page into the subsections you see now already makes an argument of sorts (Priestley published more on theology than anything else) and the location of each work in a particular subsection makes an argument that its major topic is "history" and not "education". These things are all highly debatable. There are several works that I would not have classified as Crook did, but I left them where they are because that is what the published source says. If you look at this older version of the page, you will see how different sections make Priestley's literary output look different. Awadewit | talk 18:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

These are the statements I see as prohibiting collections of lists of works rather than citations of bibliographies:

  • Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position" - A list of works is a synthesis of facts that generates an implicit argument.
  • It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source - A page that contains a selection of works by a wikipedia editor or one that creates its own subsections is de facto introducing a synthesis argument. Awadewit | talk 18:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. - This is why I was concerned that even joining together the Schofield and the Crook bibliographies might be crossing the line. Awadewit | talk 18:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly feel that I am only an advocate of research. But I do recognize when there is not enough research to underpin an article or topic.

You might also think about things like plot summaries - these are rarely quoted and thus are generally the editors' opinions of what is important in a book. Apparently, all wiki-literature articles must have them, though. The wording of these can be extremely difficult. For example, should I say in the plot summary of Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman that one of the characters was forced to have an abortion, had an abortion, or chose to have an abortion? It is possible to make a case for all three of these.

Let me know if any of this makes sense to you. Awadewit | talk 18:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, my head does hurt a little. Is "A list of works" a special term that means more than just listing all that he wrote or published? I see now from the lead sentence you emphasise the classifying of the works rather than just enumerating them. I can understand that one can consider classifying as original research. I suspect most WP editors wouldn't regard that activity as more than just grouping for reader-convenience. We're an ignorant bunch, you know. I don't understand "A list of works is a synthesis of facts that generates an implicit argument." Can you explain what the implicit argument is? If your list was merely a chronological list of all his publications, would combining sources be classed as "advancing a position" or "building a particular case"? If another editor added some works and sourced their contributions, is the issue of classifying those works the only problem?
  • If you compare the two versions of the list (see above), you could make arguments like the following. For the earlier version, you could claim: "Priestley wrote many important sermons." Since the sermons are separated out into their own category, it gives them prominence. In the later version, they are no longer separated out; readers might not even know that the list contains published sermons. For the later version, "Comparing his scientific output with his theological output, one could argue that Priestley was more interested in theology than science." When the list is divided into topics, such implicit claims can be made. such claims will be affected by how particular works are categorized. If half of the "theological and religious" works were removed and listed under "politics" (a legitimate grouping for many of them), it would suddenly become much harder to say that Priestley was more interested in theology than in science. Awadewit | talk 13:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I would say that, yes, adding sources presents a classification problem. Why should I get to classify a source if I add it? Why should I decide what the work is about? I don't get to do that in a non-list article. Awadewit | talk 13:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The WP:OR policy always qualifies its prohibition of "synthesis" with the requirement that the synthesis was done to make a point. Do you think it is never possible to synthesise or collate without making a point? Is this a problem restricted only to humanities where one applies an academic rigour? Should this rigour be applied widely on WP or is it just something you like to get right for your own work?
  • Yes, I agree that it is never possible to synthesize and collate without making a point for lists of works like this. Timelines strike me as another problematic area - who decides what information is important enough to include? Any list whose population is selected (like a timeline) is going to be a work of original research and any "organized" list is also going to be a work of original research. That is, unless the timeline or list was copied from a reliable source. Awadewit | talk 13:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I would really like to see these standards adopted on a wikipedia-wide level. I worked for a while on changing the MOS "lists of works" page, but I was only trying to achieve a limited goal. I wanted the MOS to suggest that editors include lists of works for artists of all kinds because it is important to have that information - it adds a level of understanding beyond a mere mention of the artist's most famous works. I was only moderately successful in this debate. I despair of changing any policies at wikipedia. I have tried several times; it has either been a disaster or reverted within a few weeks. Therefore, I am no longer going to waste my time doing that. Awadewit | talk 13:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
At the other extreme from your list, we have the pop-culture TV episode lists that pop up frequently on FL. Some editors have argued they don't need to list any references because, duh, each episode is its own primary source. The DVD says XYZ is episode 12 from series 3 and gives the title, director, etc. The plot summary is apparently obvious to anyone watching the episode. Leaving aside the issue of classification, what prevents you from arguing that your list of works is effectively self-sourcing?
  • Episode lists are laid out on the DVD of each season; that is one source (sometimes things like unaired pilots are not included, though). That is a bit different than a list of an author's works. It usually takes several years to amass a list like that of Priestley's. Scholars trot around to major libraries and try to find all of the editions. Inevitably, they fail. Sometimes it is not even clear if an author wrote a work or not (this is reflected in the Priestley list as well - Schofield and Crook disagree on attribution). Daniel Defoe is the classic example of this problem; there is very little agreement amongst scholars on what he actually wrote. Since he rarely signed his works, they have to rely on other evidence to attribute works to him. Such work cannot be done by wikipedia editors who are usually not experts. Many of Priestley's works don't have his name on the title page (publishing anonymously was common in the eighteenth century). Self-sourcing would therefore be difficult. Any list I constructed from a library database might miss something he published anonymous. Awadewit | talk 13:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Plot summaries are not obvious. An easy way to prove this is have five or ten of your friends watch the same movie and then write a plot summary of it. While there may be some overlap between the summaries, they will not all emphasize the same events. Different people see different things as important in a work. I usually have my composition students compare their summaries with other people in the class to demonstrate this problem - they are always amazed at the differences. Awadewit | talk 13:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Wrt the section above: I have some friends in the MOS-police, you know :-). It is certainly best if we can find ways of accommodating each other's wishes without coming to blows. Your partnership idea sounds good. You are certainly right that I have no humanities background. Indeed, on the subjects I edit on WP, I'm little more than an interested amateur. I'm increasingly reminded, as I bump into other editors or read other articles, how primitive an editor I am. Colin°Talk 22:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Some Thoughts Concerning Education

Here is the criteria for High importance philosophy articles: "The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding philosophy." This article does not satisfy this criteria. Nor does it satisfy the criteria for Mid importance philosophy articles. You can find the criteria by clicking on the link on the Philosophy box. Anarchia 21:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

STCE is vital to understanding the philosophy of education. That is a branch of philosophy. Awadewit | talk 21:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess I just plain disagree. There are very few, if any, books or articles that are vital to understanding philosophy. You can understand a lot about philosophy without having read Plato's Phaedo, or Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, or Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (thank God!). The general reaction in the philosophy department here is 'never heard of it'. I don't think that people here have a limited understanding of philosophy as a result. It is a mistake to think of importance=low or mid tags as a sign that the article or its subject are unimportant. The importance tags are for the use of people in various Wikiiproject groups, not for wiki readers to use to evaluate the importance of the article. Anarchia 02:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I've responded on the article's talk page. Why don't we restrict the discussion to that location? It would be easier for both of us, I think. Awadewit | talk 13:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Physics/wip

I notice that our paths have crossed again and so I thought I would introduce myself. I am Filll (obviously) and I notice you were involved with the wip pages at Physics. I notice that a lot of the text we were working on has been moved. Do you know where? What is actually going on there, if anything? I gave it some effort, but somehow things just headed off into the weeds and I lost interest. --Filll 12:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice to meet you Filll (I like the evolution/creationism material on your userpage). I'm afraid I do not know what is happening at Physics/wip. I haven't worked on that page in a while, either. Let me know if you solve the mystery! Awadewit | talk 13:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Anglicanism

Thank you for taking the time to GA review Anglicanism. The point you made will help when I and others work on it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 18:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Once the citations are in place, I would happy to actually review the article. :) Awadewit | talk 19:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ramón Emeterio Betances

Regarding Ramón Emeterio Betances, do you have any specific requirements as to what the lead section should include or how long it should be? --Boricuaeddie 20:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD and Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead sections. Awadewit | talk 20:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I read them. I just wanted to know if you had any specific recommendations. --Boricuaeddie 20:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I have a lot of trouble writing leads myself. One piece of advice I would give you, though, is to not restrict yourself to the article's layout when writing the lead. I've seen many good leads that do not present information in the same order as the article. Awadewit | talk 23:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

ty

I don't know if I ever thanked you for your thoughts on writing lit articles, which you posted on my talk page after the Ulysses review. I didn't reply to it directly, but it was useful. (Glad to see you didn't give up on FAC.) –Outriggr § 00:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm glad my meandering thoughts were helpful. Awadewit | talk 01:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Anglican doctrine

Thank you for taking the time to GA review Anglican doctrine. The point you made will help in copy editing the article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 15:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Need help

{{helpme}}

I believe I see the problem. Give me a minute to try to correct it and I'll let you know. --Sopoforic 18:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
You had a bunch of unclosed ref tags. You were doing <ref name=Lynch> when you should have been doing <ref name=Lynch/>. I think I got them all, but you might want to double-check to be sure. --Sopoforic 19:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! How stupid of me. I think I just kept copying the incorrect one over and over. Awadewit | talk 19:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough article

Thanks for the comments on this article – I'm sorry, I didn't know how to banner the article at the top when writing it, but I did nominate it. Sorry for the confusion; I'll address the issues you've raised. Many thanks PeterSymonds 18:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's very simple - just place {{GAnominee|2007-08-06}} at the top of the talk page (with the relevant date, of course). Awadewit | talk 18:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that is simple! I've addressed the issues that you've pointed out; if you do get a chance to re-review it then your comments will be useful.
I shall work on the general presentation (WP:MOS) and nominate it for a featured article when that's completed. Many thanks for your help! PeterSymonds 23:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I will look at the article again tomorrow. Apparently I was correct in my assessment that you are the type of editor who knows where his information comes from. :) Awadewit | talk 23:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks, Awadewit. I will work through these comments. Thankyou for your efforts! PeterSymonds 18:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. Awadewit | talk 19:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Wrongs of Woman

I'm pleased to be asked and will find the time. I'm certainly qualified—I have not been immersed in Mary Wollstonecraft for the last year. Sometimes a fresh pair of eyes can help. Simmaren 02:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate it - thanks. Awadewit | talk 02:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wadewitz/Archive_11&oldid=1140405217"