Jump to content

User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Una nota interesante

While looking over how marvelous Jane Austen now is compared to how it was a week ago, I noticed that (like Emily Dickinson, which I've finally begun to crack open) it is an FA en español. Where are these Spanish scholars that specialize in English literature and where have they been hiding? Ay, dios mio.  ;) María (habla conmigo) 18:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Austen FA is actually pretty recent (May), but the principal contributor seems to have a track record of writing quality articles for British and American authors. I'm caught between being utterly impressed and completely embarrassed. Oh, and I checked: not one Hispanic writer, or even work, listed at WP:FA. Wow, I wish I'd taken Spanish 6 in undergrad... María (habla conmigo) 19:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
That's really embarrassing for en.wikipedia, isn't it? Awadewit | talk 19:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if we could round up $10 from five people or so to put up a request on the reward board for a Spanish-language-literature FA? $50 might motivate someone. Awadewit | talk 19:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not too familiar with the reward board; are requests usually filled? How motivational is the incentive? There are some articles that have plenty of information, but formatting and citing is either sloppy or non-existent. Pablo Neruda or Miguel de Cervantes, for example, could easily become great articles if someone took the time to research properly. María (habla conmigo) 19:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if the requests are usually filled, but I have a feeling that the higher the reward, the more likely it is that it would be. :) We could make a little list of articles or just choose one, like Cervantes (arguably one of the most important Spanish-language authors). (I think I know some people who would pony up $10, by the way.) Awadewit | talk 19:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, definitely Cervantes! I could see somebody taking that on over some of the more obscure figures that I'd suggest (mostly poets; I've such a soft spot for Reinaldo Arenas). I'd contribute a fiver or so to see something brought to FA. María (habla conmigo) 20:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll see what I can round up. Awadewit | talk 20:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure. You'll have to tell me how/where to cough up, though. qp10qp 20:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Offering profit for knowledge whilst reconstructing Emma Goldman? Quick, while her ghost isn't looking – I'm in! – Scartol • Tok 20:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I currently have an empty PayPal account. We could use that. Otherwise, we will need to figure out how to set up some sort of PayPal account with an administrator. Does anyone know how to do that? Awadewit | talk 20:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Your PP is fine by me. Email me when you've got it sorted. qp10qp 22:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Aunque esté muda debo hablar:
yo la veré llegar aunque esté ciega.

Pablo Neruda's poem La muerta graced my User page for the día de los muertos, and I would be honored and happy to help send a friendly message to the good Spanish Wikipedians. I'll contribute $10 each for Pablo Neruda, Cervantes and (one of my favorites!) the eternally charming Lazarillo de Tormes — "you must be as sharp as the Devil himself, girl, if you would lead the blind!"  ;) Willow 23:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. $50 each into the pot for Cervantes and Lorca. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Ok. So my PayPal account (which is empty) is now set up to match the email address of this page (see link at left "email this user"). I will start a list on a separate page of the donations listed here for transparency. Awadewit | talk 12:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind if I just touched up the wording on your donation page ever so slightly? I think it maybe might help inspire others to join us. :) Willow 13:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Not at all! You know I aspire towards Willow-levels of tact and never quite achieve them. :) I think I can only asymptotically approach them anyway. Awadewit | talk 13:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
We each of us fly with different wings but arrive together in happy places; I would not change you for the world, even if you would. :) siempre cariñosamente, Willow 14:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
PS. Please feel free to tone it down as you see fit; it might be too, ummm, willowy. ;) Willow 14:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
How about we encourage everybody to add their own personal touch? That way it will be more communal, anyway? :) More wiki? Awadewit | talk 14:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now that this is set-up, I am going to go curl up with a good book and some soup. It is easier to cough and sneeze with a book than with a computer. Off to recover. Awadewit | talk 14:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Poor you. I picked the snuffles in blustery France last week so I sympathize. The remedy is strong smoky tea (made with two measures of Darjeeling Broken Orange Pekoe to one measure of Formosa Lapsong Souchong) with full cream milk, honey and a dash of Scotch whisky. A homemade chicken consommé (Jewish penicillin) is also efficacious. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
N'aww, I completely missed your banner at the top that says you're ill. I hope you feel better soon! btw, this is incredibly exciting for me; last night I pulled out my copy of Don Quixote de la Mancha and had a good (if a bit shaky) read. :) María (habla conmigo) 16:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll chip in $10. See WP:REWARD#Free-license_photo_of_Anne_Frank_Tree for an example of how to set up a pooled reward. Kaldari 15:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, it isn't necessary to physically pool the money beforehand, unless you really want to streamline the awarding process. Typically people just make separate award payments to whoever is deemed the winner of the award. That way if the award is never claimed everyone still gets to keep their money. Kaldari 15:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

  • (LOUD BUZZER) I'm sorry, that's the wrong answer. The correct answer is: "Shut up, Scartol. You're lucky I made the box in the first place, sick as I am. Can't you ever let someone create something artistic without being an obnoxious jerk with a criticism at the ready?" – Scartol • Tok 01:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • What is this filth? Naked ladies, kids with wings!? Is this Diego person on drugs or something? Just kidding. The first picture was lovely, and this one is too. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 00:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, the wikibreak box is built on the messagebox structure, so the following code will get you a basic box:
{| class="messagebox standard" style=background:{{{bgcol|#F8EABA}}}
|Your ad here
|}

I have posted two of the rewards. Hopefully we can garner a few more donations before posting the others. :) Awadewit | talk 15:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

the Feminism article

Hi Awadewit, and happy Christmas. I hope you're enjoying the holidays. It's been a long time since I asked for your peer review on Feminism (about 15 weeks I think). In that time a lot of people have been contributing different ideas and helping to improve the sections you pointed to as needing development. There are a few {{cn}} tags remaining (maybe 4) and the "Science and Feminism" section needs to be reworked but other than that I think the page is close to GA status. I'd really appreciate your view on it, if you can spare the time (the page is now 97kb long). Best regards--Cailil talk 16:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Take as long as you need. Thanks for looking at it--Cailil talk 16:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

God jul og godt nyttår

The title says Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I thought you might want to know that user Ulf Larsen and myself have made good use of your excellent contributions to Wikipedia for the Norwegian one, so far the articles about Mary Wollstonecraft, Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, and we have also partly finished the one about William Godwin, though you don’t seem to be responsible for that one. The last one, Godwin, seem to relay heavily on Britannica 1911, and the text is not totally satisfactory, specially the biographically parts – and I had to expand this text and must do more later on. Your texts, on the other hand, were very good, even though quite at some length, and very documented so I didn’t bother to check for other sources. We share your belief that stubby articles are less fun. The translations are pretty faithfully to your English texts. If only we could find better pictures as replacements for those of Johnson it all would be close to perfect. Once again, all the best, and thanks. --FinnWiki (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks! I'm glad to know that the articles are being translated. I plan on working on the Godwin article sometime in the distant future, so eventually that article will improve. It is indeed in a sad state. Awadewit | talk 05:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Awadewit!

I hope your dissertation is going well (however I am bit behind the times... :-p, I'm probably missing some stuff) I was curious if you would be interesting in working on an article with me again, on Jacques Plante. He was the goalie that made the goalie mask commons equipment. I've basically rewritten it from scratch, but I'm not a brilliant content writer like you, I want to submit to FAC, but it will most certainly fail on ground of criterion 1a.

I've tried a hand at copyediting myself; I have worked a bit on Calgary Flames (I apologise for being a hockey junkie). I've learned lots from trying to bring Stanley Cup to featured status and I think worthy of FA status as well. I notice you're copyediting on vampire; and interesting choice. :-p Good luck with all your projects. :-)

--Maxim(talk) 00:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I am unfortunately quite busy at the moment - I have promised several people reviews in the next few weeks and school is starting up for me. I don't think I would be able to get to it for about a month or so. You should probably look for someone else. I'm really sorry! Awadewit | talk 18:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Quality

While reading about Emperor Norton, I ran across your fine edits and criticism, leading me through a typically circuitous route to discover Citizendium. Since no good deed should go unpunished, and credit goes to you for my discovery, I thought I would burden you with my reaction. Larry Sanger's fork at Citizendium (Cz) should not go on for too long. Once established quality pages are created, they should find a place back in the fold at Wikipedia (Wp). Here's the concept: Wikipedia articles duplicated at Cz should have the option to simply redirect to the Cz page. There could be a Cz banner at the top of such pages to distinguish such pages from others at Wp. Those pages would then continue to evolve through the Cz editing process. Conversion of pages would be up to the same edit, redirect, delete debates that currently happen at Wp, but I think there should be a process. Without such a bridge, the quality of both Cz and Wp will suffer by the wedge of the fork. Castellanet (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Winston Churchill

Hello, the Churchill article was recently promoted to GA after a lengthy review by OhanaUnited. I would very much like a peer review before taking the article to FAC, just to get everything to be excellent. If you still have some of your comments on the article I would greatly appreciate any thoughts you have. It has been expanded greatly in recent weeks, especially the references. I appreciate you may be busy but any wisdom would be a great help. Thank you. LordHarris 10:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you and not a problem - Uni work comes first! :) I'm working on some other articles in the meanwhile. Thank you very much for doing this and happy new year! Best regards, LordHarris 10:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

John Michael Wright

I noticed you have an interest in art, and wondered if you'd be interested in taking a look at this article I've just written. I'm really an historian who knows nothing about art (and certainly not about baroque portraiture)- but I somehow got hooked on this guy. If you're too busy, or it isn't your field, then don't worry. Thanks.--Docg 01:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • If you can wait a week or two, I would be happy to review this article - Wright looks intriguing and his portraits beautiful. However, my semester has just begun and I need a little time to organize my schedule. Awadewit | talk 05:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


Yes please, if you are willing to review thus. I was about to nominate it for FA, but I will be away for 8 days or so from Tuesday, so I need to wait anyway. And if there's a lot needing done, best to have that pointed out before running the gauntlet. I have however, pretty well exhausted all the sources I can find. There's not a lot out there on the guy, so that may explain any gaps in the article. But please any help would be gratefully received (even if I don't immediately respond). As I said Art is not my field.--Docg 20:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fanny Imlay

I was hoping you wouldn't remind me, because I find that article so depressing—I feel so sorry for Fanny. Yet at the same time, I feel moved to stick up for Mr and Mrs Godwin a tad. I've noticed from reading Spark and other bits and pieces, that the biographers have a tendency to form oppositions, based on our contemporary views of things, when it comes to the relationships within this family. But the realities were probably less simple, more messy. Anyway, I'll have a dekko at it. qp10qp (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The Todd biography does less of that. Unfortunately it is quite speculative - I had to be very careful about what I included as it was not always clear what Todd herself had a source for. :) It's almost a novelization. Awadewit | talk 23:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Spark is a sort of novelisation, too—but of an odd sort, because it's very terse (just the opposite of the recent bumper-biog trend). I am dipping into Seymour (which is massive), but I'm not sure I can stomach reading the whole thing. It will be an excellent source of facts for the more obscure points, though. Seymour is exceptionally, almost weirdly good at the detail, and I'd be surprised if she has left a single stone unturned, but she's a noveliser in a different way, because you can tell that she is so immersed that she ventriloquises Mary. (She clearly identifies so much with Mary that Mary becomes like a real person to her, and she does that sickly thing of imagining Mary's thoughts.) I'm very much out of my zone, I admit: this is seriously different from reading about Anglo-Saxon kings! qp10qp (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that about Seymour (Todd does that with Fanny). I was using her book to bolster the citations on Fanny Imlay. When I saw it was 800 pages, I groaned. I maxed out my google book views on it, so now I have to go to the actual library. :) (Scholars don't imagine what Wulfhere thought? I wonder why...) I do think that this style of biography is generated by the subject herself and the attitudes scholars have towards her. Other figures of the same time are discussed much more dispassionately. Oddly, biographies seem to reflect the style and attitude of the person they are describing in their own prose. You should see the material on Austen - very different in style and tone, yet they lived at around the same time. Austen's biographers have tried to remain dignified and reserved, I think. They might imagine what Austen said - but only up to a point. In my field, you can study the writing of autobiographies and biographies - it might seem boring, but it isn't at all. How people choose to construct a life is actually fascinating. I think that someone could write a little article on wikipedia biographies - they have certain traits that make them unique in the biography world (not just the wiki part), such as the "in popular culture" sections. Awadewit | talk 18:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Anglo-Saxon history is highly specialised, and, unusually (most schools don't), my school specialised in it. My teacher left at much the same time as I did to publish audio books and talks on it (he was already doing this part time, and he recorded all the leading medieval historians: they used to visit us). It wouldn't occur to a serious historian to ventriloquise someone like Wulfhere, about whom we know only a handful of contradictory facts (from Alfred onwards, it's a free-for-all, mind). It's a weird discipline: on the one hand, primary sources and evidence are like rare jewels that you turn over and over in your hand, constantly squinting for new facets; on the other, large-scale speculative thinking does rather flood into the wide-open spaces where facts are lacking. Getting the balance between these two right is tricky. I didn't pursue Anglo-Saxon history at university because it becomes almost prohibitively specialised and microscopic. I still enjoy reading about it, though: it's like a suck of the thumb. I love what Mike Christie's doing but don't have that sort of patience myself. qp10qp (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
So, why is it that historians and biographers feel that they have the license to ventriloquize Mary, Percy, et. al? Awadewit | talk 12:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, take Seymour. This is her list of published works:

Biography

  • A Ring of Conspirators: Henry James and his Literary Circle.
  • Life on the Grand Scale: Ottoline Morrell.
  • Life on the Edge: Robert Graves.

Fiction

  • Carrying On.
  • Madonna of the Island.
  • The Reluctant Devil.
  • The Telling.

One can almost predict from this the way that she will approach biography. The fiction, and the non-specialist breadth of her range, don't inspire me with confidence. That isn't to say there's not a place for this kind of work: it is far more palatable to the majority of readers, who aren't bothered about or aware of scholarly niceties. Also, anyone, whoever they be, who delves into previously untouched crannies, makes invaluable contributions to the field which will forever have to be taken into account.

Good scholarly historians are sometimes asked to write biographies, and I find it painful to see them struggling with the form: Mussolini, by the serious historian Denis Mack Smith, for example, is an extraordinary work, written from start to finish like a history book: I would trust it enormously, but it makes a dense and dry read, staunchly avoids psychologisation, and is full of ifs and buts, so I daresay some readers have been disappointed with it. Usually a topic produces popular histories and serious ones, and the latter are much harder to do. You will know as an academic that often the popular writers in a field are not even taken seriously by their own universities (if they work at one), while unheard-of scholars who graft at the coalface of original scholarship and research enjoy a simple respect. (I so looked forward to going to the lectures of star historians once at university, and was astonished to find they were derided there, and their lectures sparsely attended.)

I don't need to give a list of Spark's works!

I have read as much as I can (even dipped into Todd now, which is on Amazon Look Inside) about Imlay's death since I made my comments on the article page, and the result is so far quite dismal. The best thing I have come across (too expensive, though) is The Journals of Mary Shelley. Unless I'm mistaken, the editors there really know what they are doing (they provide extensive notes). What I cannot find yet is a book that will lay out all the primary information (that one, obviously, only does so re the journal), so that I can see exactly what letters, statements, coach times, dates are known. Only with that material can one decide what is speculation and how to balance the speculation so that the reader has a good overview (by the way, I don't intend to work on Fanny Imlay, but am getting into training for Mary Shelley, so I am making these points in theory). Of course, writers are entitled to speculate, and we must record their speculations; but scholars who provide us with unspun data are particularly useful to Wikipedia, in my opinion. qp10qp (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Oh, Romantic history is nothing like Medieval history. It seems to be rampant speculation and not because there is a dearth of sources (have you seen the latest book claiming that Percy wrote Frankenstein?) I have rarely seen the kind of thing you are asking for - even less so in literary history (perhaps in history of the book?). I am kind of sorry that I got so involved in FI myself. I am not really dedicated to that page. It is just that I want all of the articles in Template:Mary Wollstonecraft to be FAs and that one is smaller and easier than, say, William Godwin. :) Ah well. The hard work is over. Awadewit | talk 14:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lists of C18th, C19th periodicals

Hi, I wanted to say how great your Analytical Review and The Guardian of Education pages are. In case you're interested, I've put together lists of C18th and C19th British periodicals. Any comments welcome, but I can imagine how busy you are with a dissertation - good luck with that! Dsp13 (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • These have the potential to be incredibly useful! What do you think about a table format, so that it is easy to lay out the editors, dates of publication, etc.? I was also thinking that a little description of each periodical might be nice (although hard!). What wonderful work you are doing here! Awadewit | talk 19:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thanks v. much for the encouragement - I wondered about tables, but they're fussy to edit & I wasn't sure what to put in them until I'd seen what was there! You're right that a little description might be nice also, though I think my own efforts (shortly to decrease as term's starting!) will probably go towards turning some of the redlinks blue. thanks again for the nice words, tho. Dsp13 (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

2008 looks promising

Virginia Woolf has been rather neglected, hasn't it? It'll be a while before I get around to it (Stephen Crane -- a personal favorite of mine -- is my newest project and Emily Dickinson is being polished and peer reviewed before heading to FAC), but I'll definitely keep you in mind for Mrs. Woolf. Do you do American to British lingo conversions by any chance?  :) I'm slowly building a list of like-minded, literary Wikipedians to work their mayhem help with such a daunting project, so I won't be alone!

  • Oo, cheat sheet. That could come in handy. Crane is actually a lot harder to write than Dickinson was; I think I became accustomed to summarizing a life in which not much happened, making mountains out of molehills. Now I have to write about a guy who only lived 28 years but really lived them. Talk about changing gears. They did, however, have some things in common, and Dickinson's poetry apparently was an influence for Crane's unconventional and free-verse "lines". I could go on and on...

You know, I was wondering if you were going to get to Mary Shelley; I read over it a few months ago and it honestly bugged me how her biography ends after Percy's death. What about those last, oh, thirty years of her life? Sigh. I really look forward to reading your work in 2008, and although I may be new to all of this, if you need help from a wee reference librarian and frazzled grad student at some point down the line, don't hesitate to get in touch. :) María (habla conmigo) 23:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • It's very gratifying, yes. Except for when the students start freaking out. I had a girl break down in tears in front of me once because she was so stressed out about a paper she had to write that was due the next day. Eek! María (habla conmigo) 13:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to Evolution

Your commentary on the Introduction to Evolution featured article attempt is actively being discussed on Talk:Introduction to evolution. It would be most appreciated if you would be kind enough to contribute to the dialog there. It may be that your concerns have been addressed. If not, then further guidance would be appreciated. The page should be well organized; if you go to the bottom and scroll up you should be able to locate your specific concern which I took the liberty of copying/pasting to this page. Many thanks for following up on the discussion.--Random Replicator (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

:) Sorry for he formalities ... I attached the notice on all who left concerns. Is there a name for someone who trolls the FA nomination page --- an randomly "votes"? You would think they would have an obligation to follow up! Again thanks for all of your help. I am grossly biased ; but I really think it is good.--Random Replicator (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the article is good as well - I'm sure it will eventually pass. Unfortunately, I've had some rough FACs in the past. I learned from them never to take an article that wasn't totally prepared to FAC. I even made a little FAC checklist (it's on my userpage). It's helped me a lot. Most of my FACs have gone rather smoothly since I thought up the list. I'm sorry this one isn't going well for you and Fill - I think that some of the reviewers have a different philosophy about the article and that is generating some of the problems (it happened at the FAC for introduction to general relativity, too, but poor Markus Poessel stuck it out). I think you are doing an excellent job of addressing everyone's concerns, though. Awadewit | talk 05:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Favours

Sure, --ROGER DAVIES talk 23:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just done JJ (I'll read it again to see if I missed anything ). I made a couple of copy changes unrelated to BE : if they offend thee, pluck them out. I've started on ED though the rest of today may get busy. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you also from me, ROGER! :)
Everything looked great, although I was confused about "he helped Priestley (to) publish". Is it really OK to leave off the infinitive "to"? It sounds, ummm, a-Latinate. ;) Willow (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. The bare infinitive is fine here. I think the to-infinitive is normally only used to express compulsion or purpose (use, have, hope, expect, want, command, order, instruct and so forth). --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Emily Dickinson peer review now done. --ROGER DAVIES talk 02:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You have email. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
So do you. Funny how that works. Awadewit | talk 08:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy new year!

"Here's looking at shoes?"

Thanks Awadewit—same to you. I hope you have a productive year of disserting! I haven't been able to come up with a clever picture, but I did ask Ulysses to leave you a poem after you volunteered to watch the page. –Outriggr § 04:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

heads up

...some notes on dates here. Is this the sort of thing you meant? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking that I won't be very useful on the vampire article, actually. I don't have time right now to debate each point that I made in the review. I'm sorry, but I didn't know that my suggestions were going to be viewed as so contentious (they usually aren't). I'm sure that you and the other editors will be able to decide what dates are useful in the article. Awadewit | talk 12:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
No no, I found them very helpful - I was sailing a bit adrift and it really gave some structure.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi A,

Could I borrow your brain for a little bit? I've finished typing in a list of scientific writings of Albert Einstein, but I'm not sure how I should convert that jumble of factoids into a Featured List. I posted a message at Wikipedia talk:Featured lists with some concerns and questions; if you had any time, I would appreciate your insights! :) I notice all's quiet at JJ, too. Willow (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, your thoughts are really helpful! :) Willow (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year, ctd.

Many thanks for the good wishes, and for broadening my mind via interesting article review opportunities. Best of luck with your dissertation, and all the best in general for 2008! --Markus Poessel (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Priestley house

I did my best, but it's really quite unfair! The article's too good for me to seriously pick at. :) Good luck with it, and let me know when it goes to FA. Hope the semester is treating you well so far and that your dissertation is going well. PS: still working on your reference quest, although so far no tengo nada. María (habla conmigo) 14:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am like a dog with a stick when I see Peer Review comments and replied to them all - can't help myself. Thanks again to Maria. Awadewit, please forgive me if I stepped on your (metaphorical) toes on the PR. I did leave the worst sentence (mine too, I'm afraid) for you to try and fix ;-) Sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem (less work for me during the first week of the semester!) Awadewit | talk 23:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Scolar/Scholar Press

Apologies: more searching (such as [1]) confirms that it really is/was Scolar Press. I was misled by the WorldCat entry [2], which uses the Scholar spelling. And you're right that Find A Grave doesn't add much except to note that Boydell's memorial was moved after the destruction of St. Olave Old Jewry. BTW, I have some material on the Shakespeare Gallery building that I'll add in the next few days. Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Feminism

I love your edits on the Feminism article. I hope to see more of your edits to the article in the future. --Grrrlriot (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Me too! :) Relatedly, can I ask your advice? I was thinking of adding an external link at feminism to this video relating feminism and deafhood, which seems a novel and thought-provoking perspective. Unfortunately, I don't understand sign language well enough to follow it in detail, and I fear that few others would as well. Maybe I shouldn't include it there? Willow (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing that sign-language isn't that well-known a language. Since feminism is already plagued by too many links, perhaps we should leave it out? If the video had a translation, I would be more inclined to advocate for its inclusion (particularly since the article doesn't contain any mention of this perspective), but as it is... Awadewit | talk 23:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Small note

Hi Awadewit, I understand completely - I actually checked sources before saying that we would write articles for the redlinks and found enough on Breda that I think I can write a start class article. I am slightly more worried about the railroad getting to start class, but Choess is both very kind and very knowledgable about Pennsylvania railroads and should be able to help me here too. I was not trying to get you to write either and appreciate all your very hard work on the article.

I have never submitted something to FAC or FLC with a redlink and have written a number of articles to get rid of red links in the process. I do try to write Start class too. I also have contributed at least one map to everything that is featured to which I have been a major contributor, so perhaps this is a good omen ;-).

As for the Peer Review, would you mind fixing the too many Joesphs sentence? I have given two attempts at a solution on the PR page, and prefer splitting it into two sentences four paragraphs apart, but defer to your judgement. Also the comment from Lord Harris seems more in your domain (Schofield seems the best reference here, although Kieft and Silverman also could be cited on this if need be). Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  • There is no requirement that articles be redlinkless to achieve FAhood. I have submitted many articles with redlinks. I have attempted to fix the Josephs sentence - see what you think of my solution. I have also added the citations. Awadewit | talk 23:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much - the fix seems good to me. I know a lack of red links is not a requirement, just my own anal retentiveness (should that have a hyphen?). Speaking of which, I have one more minor question, and two small items that might be suitable additions to the article. 1) Germantown, Pennsylvania is a dab - I need to know where it is for the map and to fix the dab. My guess is that Germantown, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is meant. Washington had a house there, it was sort of the Versailles or Potsdam to Philly. 2) When the Priestleys arrived in America, Philadelphia was the capital of the US - should that be mentioned in the whole Philadelphia section? Perhaps On their way to Northumberland, the Priestleys stopped in Philadelphia (then the capital of the United States), where Joseph gave... ? 3) I believe this house is the only Priestley house left - all the others he lived in or owned are gone now. If true, I think that deserves a mention. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I couldn't figure the Germantown bit out. If you can, excellent.
      • I don't think we need to mention that Philly was the capital - it is not significant for the information in this article.
      • If it's true that this is the only Priestley house left standing, we should include that fact, but I haven't read that anywhere I can remember. JP lived in a lot of places - I can only imagine that it would be hard to verify that. Awadewit | talk 01:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Black Sabbath & Rodin

Er, I run Black Sabbath's website, I know of what I speak. What kind of "sourced" do you want? It is legitimate info, if you want to integrate it better that's fine, rewrite it, but I can guarantee the info I posted that you removed is accurate.

Dopefish (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm glad we have a Black Sabbath expert on the case! However, I'm afraid that the information itself is a bit trivial (see also WP:POPCULTURE). Currently, the Rodin article contains a "Legacy" section that describes his artistic legacy in broad strokes. The Black Sabbath tidbit, while fascinating, does not fit well with the other information in this section. It is possible to create an entire page entitled Rodin in popular culture, much like Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture, filled with lists of these kinds of references. If you want to start the pop culture page, including the source for the information will ensure that it is not deleted. Thanks again! Awadewit | talk 00:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


To keep Rodin a sculpture is an art;
avail upon the busy. We are told
that if you want a task done right, you ask,
abashed, the one with too much on her plate.
Awadewit, at what the price? If these
unpolished lines of poetry upon
your page, perchance, could pass for pennies or
for pence, we'd still be less in elegance.

(Those femmes, who came and went, chose not to speak
augustly of Auguste, our French sculpteur—
their hero was Italiano, their
faint music never heard at Sabbath hour.)

Ulysses 03:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you're not lost at sea! Awadewit | talk 04:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you! There is a fine line between persistence and obsessive! I have definitely crossed-over as indicated by item five on the list. Take a look when you get a chance. FA is no longer a source of inspiration --- my goals is more focused now! No sympathy votes allowed! Cheers--Random Replicator (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

BSG additions

I have just added some material on the Shakespeare Gallery building to Boydell Shakespeare Gallery. Much of it comes from the Survey of London source, with a few points from elsewhere. I included a bit of background on Pall Mall in the late 18th century, and George Nicol's purchase of 51 Pall Mall. I also expanded the paragraph on comparable projects (Historic Gallery, Gallery of Poets, etc.) I would of course be grateful for your review of this. Please feel free to edit and trim as needed, and to question any part.

Perhaps our next step could then be to check through the article against the FA criteria (which I'm sure you already have in mind.) Rupert Clayton (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

JJ

The text just above says Godwin was introduced to the circle by Wollstonecraft. It can't be both (though I guess I picked the wrong one to remove). The introduction of Johnson to the Lunar Society also happens twice and by two different methods. Yomanganitalk 01:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  • OK, that was too easy, now do the Lunar Society ;) a)In the 1760's: By printing the works of Warrington tutors, Johnson also made himself known to an even larger network of Dissenting intellectuals, including those in the Lunar Society, which expanded his business further. b)In the 1780s: Johnson also published many of the works written by the members of the Lunar Society, a scientific society in the Midlands to which Priestley introduced him. My money is on c) an introduction by Priestley in the 1760s. Yomanganitalk 01:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to confuse things further Uglow claims Eramus Darwin was introduced to Johnson by Fuseli in May 1784. Yomanganitalk 00:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you want to lay out the evidence on the JJ talk page? We will assemble all of the authors' own evidence and see what it all looks like? Who actually cites evidence for their claim, etc.? Awadewit | talk 01:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to get the book out again. I'll see what I can do on Monday. I also have (or at least I think I still have) Benedict Nicholson's meticulously researched book on Joseph Wright of Derby which is surprisingly detailed on some of the goings on in the Lunar Society. I'll see if I can dig that out too. Yomanganitalk 01:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I added some things to the talk page. Awadewit | talk 02:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I found this article curiously flat. I just didn't feel I knew him much better by the end of the article than I did after reading the first paragraph. I think it is because the man himself seems mostly absent, especially in the later chronological sections (the legacy section pulls it back a bit). We get to know all about his friends and his work but next to nothing about him. Look at the paragraph on the dinner circles - it's almost like he was in the kitchen cooking the rice pudding while everybody else was enjoying themselves. Is there not more from his recently discovered correspondence to illuminate his feelings or motives? Yomanganitalk 02:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have done the best I can with the available research. There isn't much information on "JJ the man", if you will. Qp10qp and I are working on Mary Shelley research right now - that article will have plenty of such tidbits - I promise. :) Awadewit | talk 02:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a pity, it would be more engaging with a bit of personal drama. Look forward to MS - don't let Qp10qp bully you into using those awful lower case noble titles. ;) And perhaps you will take pity on Ned Ward at some point? - everybody agrees he deserves better but nobody has plucked up the courage to have a go yet. Yomanganitalk 00:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll add it to my new "request list". :) Awadewit | talk 00:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
...and just before I stop bothering you: By the end of his career, Johnson had acquired a majority or monopoly share in the ownership of the works of: Shakespeare, Milton, Alexander Pope, Joseph Addison, Richard Steele, Samuel Johnson, and all of the major novelists of the period (except Samuel Richardson) Monopoly or majority share in the works of Shakespeare and Milton? Was that possible? Who sold them to him? ...and who are the major novelists? Yomanganitalk 02:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know for sure - I am relying on Chard to be right about this. S/he doesn't lay out all of the details. Awadewit | talk 02:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't like it: it's far too vague in its phrasing for such a bold and widereaching claim, but I leave it to your judgement, as, if true, it is important. Yomanganitalk 00:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I have the article in a PDF and can email it to you, if you like. Chard just states that the economics of buying and selling ownership was incredibly complex and then goes on to make this claim, which, as you note, is important. Awadewit | talk 00:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your review of Winston Churchill

My most honoured thanks to you for the review. It is no small feat for an article so large! I know it must have taken you a lot of your time. I will endeavour to respond to your concerns and will keep you posted on my progress along with the others, at the talk page. I noticed you already have a reviewers award (which I thought of giving you) and a copyeditors one, so I had a look for something you hadnt yet recieved and I found the below. Thank you again.

The Wise Old Owl Award
The Wise Old Owl Award – for when a few words of wisdom change the course of events for the better. Given for your review of Winston Churchill. LordHarris 08:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I have followed your advice and (with great pain) begun the process of cutting the article down! I have created a new section: Later life of Winston Churchill so as to retain and eventually expand on WCs later life. I want to thank you for pointing out Isaac Newton and Joseph Priestley. I had a read of both and you were right, although interesting I found that towards the end I had been reading for quite some time! I would however congratulate you on an excellent featured article. Just one small question - what illness did Priestley get that almost killed him and gave him a permanent stutter? With Isaac Newton I found their example of where they had split the article, to be of great help in creating WCs later life article. Also for your continued assistance for WC, next time I'm in Bournemouth (as I live 10 minutes away) I will take some photos of the resting place of Mary Shelley and Mary Wollstonecraft (as I noticed there are no images of their tombstones in the articles). LordHarris 10:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I went into Bournemouth this afternoon to see a film. Beforehand I went to the church almost behind the cinema and took this, they might be of use to you for relevant articles? LordHarris 21:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A stubby stubby stub....

I just made one for Harleian Miscellany - is this a bit early for your interest? Was just keen on expanding it a wee bit.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

great - it contains the first use of the word vampire in english...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

MS biog

That is a depressing question, because I don't believe the three I've seen are very good. It's been unsettling me that I can't find a "bible": usually when I work on an article, I have one book at least that I trust (for Shakespeare, it was Honan; for the late Valois, Sutherland and Knecht). Spark is of course brilliantly written, but that makes it almost unparaphrasable: it is a sketch, really, and not intended to be comprehensive (a slim volume, and the biography takes up only half of it; the rest is critical material). Sunstein I have only read bits of on Amazon Search Inside: it seems quite solidly written, but with the usual biographical spinning and blurring, and I found it out rather badly on the Fanny Imlay point, since it states as a fact (not a hypothesis) that she met the Shelleys at Bath, and for that references Pollin, who makes clear that he is speculating, plus an obscure letter by Lady Shelley the contents of which she fails to tell us (I wonder why). Seymour has many faults and is hardly bearable in places when she novelises and ventriloquises: but hers is a big book, and she literally piles in all the information she can, which makes it useful—the sheer quantity of material she provides militates against generalisation. So, of those flawed three, I would have to say Seymour.

I also haven't yet found a good biography of Percy Shelley: Holmes is dodgy and Bieri can't write for toffees. If only Gittings and Manton had done Mary or Percy (Gittings's Keats biography is brilliant, in my opinion, and shows how it should be done). qp10qp (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Mais oui, mon amie

You know that I would sooner undergo trepanation than miss an opportunity to review one of your fine articles, dear A. But of course I must insist on a quid pro quo, Clarice. I therefore request that you conduct a GA review of the recently-reconstructed Le Père Goriot. I believe I can take this one to FA if I try, but I'm not sure if it's comprehensive enough at the moment. I have faith that you can provide the needed guidance (as always). Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 18:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Re: The thing. Ouch. I understand you two have had some words in the past; I see similar sorts of comments on other FACs, and I wonder if my writing is better, or there just hasn't been the same kind of scrutiny paid to "my" articles. Either way, it's hilarious to see you running two FACs at the same time, while also composing a dozen other pieces and reviewing my GA nom. "[E]diting less actively in 2008" indeed! – Scartol • Tok 22:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Tradeoff

Sure. I'll trade ya. I know a thing or two about the Bard. Wrad (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

re: Peer reviews and other sundries

Emily wrote enough drafts and revisions on the backs of letters and recipes to last anyone a lifetime; I'm sure she knows exactly how I feel. :) You're right, of course, and I'm incredibly grateful for the support(no matter how overwhelming it is from time to time). btw, I saw on Roger's talk page that you were the one who sent him my way, so thank you!

My original plan was to keep the article at PR for a couple weeks, but seeing as how one of your FACs was torn into tiny little MOS-obsessed pieces, I'm thinking of sticking to PR for a bit longer. Ouch. I must say, though, that you handled yourself a lot better than I would have. The hounding I received for Knut (polar bear) was bad enough; I'm not sure I can take such pettiness over Emily. The erratic punctuation in her poetry alone would probably drive some to fits! Can you imagine? "Oppose on the account that this so-called 'poet' doesn't know the difference between an em-dash and an en-dash!" María (habla conmigo) 19:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Roger is a good reviewer and editor, so I'm glad that you guys are hitting it off. He's a great editor to have as a wiki-friend.
  • I wouldn't model yourself on my FAC behavior. Tony and I have gotten into spats before - that is why I kind of lost it. :( I have noticed an increasingly acrimonious and petty (as you note) tone on FAC. It is unfortunate. It is difficult to find the energy to drag oneself through the process, even when one knows the process can make the article better. *sigh* We will all be there with you for Emily, though. A gaggle of supportive friends. :) Awadewit | talk 19:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Supportive friends are definitely coming in handy as of right now. :) On a related note, that was a bit much last night, wasn't it? It was I think my second time !voting for whether or not an article should appear on the main page, but I felt rather strongly about my decision. If people are going to get so fatalistic about the whole thing, maybe I should just stay away from that side of the FA process. It does seem rather skewed in the first place. María (habla conmigo) 13:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That kind of personal reaction doesn't usually happen. I would say it is an anomaly. However, the page itself has serious problems - as you say, it is skewed. Awadewit | talk 20:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution

We may have a concensus version of the problem paragraph. Freely edit the User:Dweller/evol#Final Version. Don't be shy. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels

The January 2008 issue of the WikiProject Novels newsletter [found here: January 2008 issue]] notes that four articles on novels reached featured article status in 2007. Two are yours. Good work. Simmaren (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You think there would be more novel FAs promoted, wouldn't you? Awadewit | talk 02:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 3 14 January 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor: A new weekly feature 
Special: 2007 in Review Wikimania 2009 bidding ends, jury named 
Controversial non-administrator rollback process added Supposed advance draft of Jobs keynote surfaces on talk page 
WikiWorld comic: "The Nocebo Effect" News and notes: Fundraiser ends, $500,000 donation, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News Tutorial: Fundamentals of editing 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wadewitz/Archive_21&oldid=1252085822"