User:Corinne/sandbox

Ferdynand Ruszczyc In responses to User:Hafspajen's query of 22 October 2014 which I just saw, "Shall I shout after Yngvadottir for resque [sic]?": Yes!!! Does User:Yngvadottir read Lithuanian? S/He could have translated directly from Lithuanian and done a lot better than this horrible translation and my efforts to put it into understandable English. CorinneSD (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think she is the one. Or she know someone who does. Hafspajen (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Hafs. I was off-line for a few hours. When I got back on, I started working on this. I did see your other note. I'll get to the nominations page now. Hope you don't mind I mentioned Yngvadottir without asking you first. CorinneSD (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

NO, no, she is the nicest possible admin - and you know her. Hafspajen (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I know she's nice. I was just concerned that maybe I should have asked you first before I put a link to notify her to look here. I just made some copy-edits to the article Edward Middleton Manigault. I love his paintings. I put just "Manigault" in the WP search bar and was taken directly to an article about someone else, a boxer I think. Shouldn't it go first to the disambiguation page? Then one should get choices, including the article on the artist. CorinneSD (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

[Note: the Polish translation below this was in much better shape, and it was easier to form into good English sentences than this one was.]

 Do you still want more added to the Ferdynand Ruszczyc article from this material? As you can see from my note in single square brackets just above, after I had spent time trying to put the translation from Lithuanian into good English, I moved to the Polish translation (in a section below) and found it much easier. I left blank spaces where I didn't know what was intended and a few questions. I thought User:Sca would be able to fill in the blanks and answer some of the questions, but nothing has happened since then. Do you want us to work on this and then add to the article? CorinneSD (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * But of course I want to ad it. I was only waithing for it to be finished.... Hafspajen (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, good. I did as much as I could from the material in your "Sadbox". I was hoping User:Sca could fill in the blank spaces I left and answer a few questions. I think it would be better to work mainly with the Polish translation, below, at User:CorinneSD/sandbox since I found it more comprehensible than the Lithuanian translation. CorinneSD (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, if he didn't until now there is probably no hope, I remember him saying he was not particularelly interested in writing articles. Maybe someone else with language abilities can do that. Hafspajen (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you think about this edit? Hafspajen (talk) 11:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I would have to know the story well in order to comment on the content of the addition, but, stylistically, it was not an improvement to add "particularly" when, just before it, the word "particular" is used.  Perhaps you know the story and can evaluate this edit.


 *  Have you been ignoring this because you have no interest in it or because you think it is too big a task? I've already done about two-thirds of the work, putting a translation from Polish (and Lithuanian, but forget that because the translation was too far from standard English to make much sense) into standard English. I did as much as I could, but there were a few places where I couldn't make out what was intended. Perhaps you can, just by looking at the translation (it's in Hafs' "Sadbox"). If you can't figure it out, then perhaps you could look at the original Polish (I don't know where it's from; is it from the Polish WP?). Please, Sca. I put a lot of work into this, and a good article about an interesting artist could come out of it. It's not that I want any credit; I don't need that. I just hate to waste a lot of hours of work. CorinneSD (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Corinne, did you read my note below? I can't read Polish. But I'll look at it as a copy-ed if you provide a link to the 'sadbox.' Sca (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Stagnating translation from various Inter-Wiki articles
=Translation from Lithuanian=

From 1882 [to 1890?] Ferdynand Ruszczyc studied classical [art? drawing? painting?] at the Minsk Lithuanian gymnasium / Minsk gymnasium in Lithuania / gymnasium in Minsk [Is Minsk in Lithuiania? I thought it was in Russia.],...........graduating with the institution's gold medal. After that he spent two years at the Faculty of Law in St. Petersburg [, Russia,], followed by five years at the Academy of Arts [where?],.............studying under Prof. F. Ruščica. [Kuindži? Is this the last name of the professor or the name of a town/city?]            In 1908 Ruszczyc moved from Krakow to Vilnius, Lithuania, where he lived on Bridge Street [corner of Lensky's house??]............[I don't understand this part at all, or its relevance. I've just copied it: F. Ruszczyc actively participated in the work of the Seimas of Vilnius, Vilnius region, having defined the status of Poland. It is the implicit connection of the Vilnius region. Picture by Seimas of Vilnius stamp depicting St. Christopher.]

Early work/works
[Why is this saying "Ruščica early landscapes" and "Ruščica image"? Is Ruščica the name of the professor under whom he studied, or the name of a place? Or another spelling of Ruszczyc? If it's the name of the professor, why are these sentences about the professor and not Ruszczyc?]............[I don't understand this sentence: "The sky in his paintings as well as experienced the metamorphosis." I know that "a metaphorphosis" is a change, but I don't understand "as well as", or even "as well" -- also -- why "also"? ]..........While in his teens, Ruszczyc painted a clear sky in the background, his later paintings more often showed a cloudy sky, representing a change in mood and suggesting the constantly changing world / inner world / emotions...... One of his paintings was first presented in 1899 in Warsaw to critical acclaim. Viewers and art critics alike were impressed by his vivid, realistic but emotionally charged rural scene that evoked patriotic feelings among his countrymen. Viewers and critics admired both the technique and content of the painting. The following year, Ruszczyc's paintings were included in an exhibition celebrating Krakow's [I think Crakow is English spelling] Jagiellonian University's 500th anniversary, after which Ruszczyc was unanimously elected krokuviškės -- a member of the Polish Artists Society [Sztuka??]. For many years [What years? I think it would be good to give the years.]........ he exhibited his works at exhibitions of the Society and in Warsaw, Prague, Vienna, and London.

Middle period
In 1903 and 1904, Ruszczyc helped establish the Warsaw School of Fine Arts. [I found this next sentence a bit difficult to understand, but I'll do my best. Here it is: "In this school, it is already a professor, a student became Nicholas Constantine Čiurlionis with Ruszczyc interact and later lived in Vilnius."] While a professor at the School, Ruszczyc met and became friends with a student named Nicholas Constantine Čiurlionis. Both later lived in Vilnius. [I don't understand the next sentence at all: "At the time of Lithuanian artists who created Čiurlinios Ruszczyc by most called it the herald of a new art."]........... In 1907, following the death of the painter Jan Stanislavski, Ruszczyc was was to head the Department of Fine Arts at Krakow Academy. He accepted, but disillusioned by intrigue and controversy within the school, soon resigned from the position.

In 1908 Ruszczyc settled in Vilnius where he became involved in the cultural life of the city. He organized events and became an [inscenizuotoju??] and decorator [What kind of decorator? Is this really the right word? Perhaps "illustrator"?]........He was an infuence upon the intellectual life of Vilnius. He was admitted to the secret Masonic lodge ["and its people advocate Thaddeus Vrublevskio 1899 m. animated Society of Szubrawcy"??? I don't understand this part.]......... He created covers for directories, magazines and other publications and became an accomplished graphic designer. Responding to the Arts and Crafts movement in Europe, he developed new publications and other design projects in which all design elements were integrated and balanced.

In his design work, Ruszczyc drew more from the past than the current industrial age. [After an initial "He saw", the next sentence begins a quote with open quotation marks, but there are no close quotation marks to mark the end of the quote, so I don't know (a) if this is really a direct quote, (b) if it is, what the source is, and (c) where the quote ends.]

....At the end of 1912, he started to amass an archive of urban photography, now called / OR: called [Did Ruszczyk name it, or was this name given later?].....the Jan Bulhak Artwork [Strange name for an archive of photographs.] that captured many scenes of Vilnius. [I do not understand the next sentence: "Respect and care for Vilnius Ruszczyc expressed formatting album being protected from Wilno z lat student."]............Another activity that marked Ruszczyk has an innovator was theater. WHO TRANSLATED THIS FROM LITHUANIAN? IT MUST HAVE BEEN A COMPUTER. THESE ARE NOT ANYWHERE NEAR ENGLISH SENTENCES, SO IT'S DIFFICULT TO KNOW WHAT WAS MEANT. [I don't understand this sentence or the sentences that follow it: "Of Polish theatrical life, like all policy muravjoviškos degraded culture, just press regained revived pretty quickly."]..............

In 1914, Ruszczyc was invited to Warsaw where he worked on the scenery for the drama Balladyna by J. Slovakis. The premiere was a success.

In the spring of 1915, after Vilnius was occupied by the Germans??? at the beginning of the First World War, Ruszczyk moved to Bogdanov [Where is Bogdanov?] where he stayed for three years. In 1919, upon the re-opening of the University of Vilnius at the end of the war, Ruszczyk [What does this mean? "took Ruszczyc educational activities"???]............ He put a lot of effort into [establishing? developing?]........ the local university and its art programs [WHAT local university???]........... Working at Bathory University until 1932, he served as Dean of the Faculty of Arts and as a member of the Senate. While there, he continued his design work, designing book covers, vignettes, stamps, and fundraising [cards? or invitations?]........., and created individual medals and flags for various groups. He also helped organize and design two major exhibitions in 1921, including the first Polish exhibition in Paris. In 1928 he organized a regional exhibition in Vilnius [?? "where the focus was on the Vilnius and Naugarduko pertains edges and cultural life.????]...........He worked on two major celebrations: one in 1922 marking the 400th anniversary of the canonizaiton of St. Casimir and one in 1931 [I don't understand the rest of this sentence.]

Awards
In 1923, Ruszczyk was awarded an award of merit for the political Restituta Order in the district of Vilnius. [Don't really understand this sentence, either.]

=Translation from Polish=

Ferdinand Rushchyts (December 10, 1870 - October 30, 1936 / 10 December 1870 - 30 October 1936) was a Polish painter, graphic artist, illustrator, designer and educator. He painted mostly landscapes and represented the Young Polish artistic movement. He made illustrations and designed vignettes, book covers, posters, bookplates and stamps. He also wrote articles about monuments in the Vilnius region.

Early life / Early years
The Ruszczców family [descended behind Buga???]........... Ferdynand Ruszczyc's grandparents were Ferdinand and Anna [Ruszczów?] from [Czechowiczów?.....what/where is this? — It seems to be an old estate or manor house, now a park, about 30 mi. north of Minsk, Belarus — which in the late Middle Ages was part of Poland-Lithuania -sca], who had nine children. Ferdynand's father, Edward, was a captain in the army of the Tsar [of Russia? - yes - sca] and a graduate of Brest military school's Corps of Cadets. Ferdynand's mother, Alwin, nee Munch, was [a dunk????].....from Nexø on Bornholm [what/where is this? — Danish island off SE tip of Sweden -sca]........... [I skipped the sentence about her father, and the next sentence about where his parents met.] The Ruszczyców family seat was landed property in Bohdanow that the family had [received?] as a result of repression after the January Uprising [for some time to leave???]. [This is not clear. How did the family get land as a result of repression?]..............["For his assets returned from Minsk in 1888." This sentence is not clear, either. Does it mean "He returned from Minsk in 1888 to claim his assets/property"? And who is "He"?]...........["Ruszczycowie had five children, four daughters and youngest son of Ferdinand." I assume that this Ferdinand is Ferdynand the artist's grandfather. If so, I'm not sure that this information is necessary.]...

According to the accepted practice in the courts of the Polish nobility, Ferdinand Rushchyts/Ruszczyc --- I think the Polish spelling "Rushchyts" is a better guide to pronunciation for English speakers than "Ruszczyc" -- was educated at home until the age of thirteen. In 1883 he was sent to a gymnasium. ["At the same time teaching school," -- Does this mean he taught school while he was studying drawing in middle school? If not, what does it mean?]................he studied drawing in Middle School in Minsk, graduating with honors in 1890. In the same year he began studying law at the University of St. Petersburg. He did not neglect his art education and attended lectures as an auditor at the St. Petersburg Academy of Fine Arts. Two years later, with the consent of his parents he resigned from his law studies and passed the entrance examination for the Academy of Fine Arts. From 1892 to 1897 he studied there under the guidance of Ivan Shishkin and Archippus Kuindżiego. He undertook study tours to the Crimea, France, Germany, Italy and Sweden. In 1897 he made his debut as an artist at the culminating exhibition at the Academy, and in 1900 his works were presented at the annual exhibition of the Academy.

Career
After graduating from the Academy in 1898, he moved to the family home at Bohdanow [Where? — ''a village in present-day Belarus, then part of the Russian Empire; it no longer exists. -sca'']. In the years 1898 to 1902 he made a series of study trips to various cities including Munich, Berlin, Dresden, Paris and Venice. After returning from one of these trips, in 1898, he painted one of the most famous paintings of the Earth [?? What painting??]................... Ruszczyc's first exhibition took place in Vilnius, Lithuania, in 1899. ["In this city devoted to the socio-pedagogical and organizational, inter alia, collaborated with theater Vilnius." I don't understand this sentence.]............. Beginning in 1900 he was a member of the Society of Polish Artists. ["Art"??? What's this?]......... In the same year he participated in an exhibition organized on the occasion of the 500th anniversasry of the Jagiellonian University. In 1903 he organized an exhibition ["...in Vilnius Ars (originally the exhibition was called art, but the name was changed under the pressure of the tsarist censorship)"???? I don't understand "...in Vilnius Ars". Does it mean "an exhibition of the arts of Vilnius", or is this the actual name of the exhibition, or what?]..............Starting in 1904 he was a professor at the Warsaw School of Fine Arts, and in 1907 he ["took over the cathedral landscape at the Academy of Fine Arts in Krakow"....What does "took over the cathedral landscape" mean? Does this mean he took over the position as head of the department of cathedral landscape? Does that make sense?]..............On October 10, 1913 / 10 October 1913, at the age of 43, he married Regina Gina Rouck [Regina Gina? Wouldn't "Gina" be a nickname for Regina?], a young woman of 22, or 22 years his junior [= younger than he was]? They had six children: a daughter, Janina (b. 1914), a son, Edward (b. 1915), a son, Oscar (b. 1917), a daughter, Eve (b. 1922), a son, Andrew (b. 1926), and a daughter, Barbara (b. 1928). In the years 1916 to 1917 ["in the court Ruszczyców Bohdanow stationed in the German army, the artist of the family occupied two rooms" I don't understand this sentence.].........

War years / Military service
In 1918, Bohadanów was occupied by the Red Army. Rushchyts joined the so-called Volunteer Army and actively participated in the battles of the Vilnius region [against whom?]................

Later years
He was co-founder and starting in 1919 served four times as Dean of the Faculty of Fine Arts at the University of Stefan Batory ["who in 1923 increased by Department of Architecture" Does this mean "which in 1923 was enlarged by the addition of the Department of Architecture" or "where he added the Department of Architecture"???]............... In 1935 at that university he was given the title of Honorary Professor by the university's president Ignacy Moscicki. In 1932 he was partially paralyzed [Why? From what?]. Under the care of his daughter and his wife he returned to health but had lost the use of his right hand. He continued painting with his left hand. In 1933 he moved from Vilnius to the family home in Bohdanów where he died on October 30, 1936 / 30 October 1936. He was buried there in the cemetery where his grave can still be seen today.

Awards and honours
In 1921 the French government awarded him the Order of the Knight of the Legion of Honour, and in 1923 the Polish government awarded him the Cross of Commander of the Order of Polonia Restituta. He received many medals [don't understand the rest of this sentence].............

Huh?
,, what's up? I got a msg that Corinne mentioned me here twice. I thought I had answered some of the questions about Ruszczyc months ago (see notes in ital above). To recap:


 * R was born in the village of Bogdanov (Polish: Bohdanów) in what is now Belarus. At the time it was in the Russian empire. The village, which apparently belonged to his family's estate, no longer exists. He was from a Polish noble family, so one may guess that Bogdanov/Bohdanów once was part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, dissolved in the partitions of Poland.
 * Minsk is the capital of present-day Belarus. In R's time it was in the Russian empire, and later the USSR.
 * Cracow is the English spelling of Kraków (pronounced Krah' koof), which before WWI was in Austria-Hungary. It was capital of PL before Warsaw became the capital at the end of the 16th C.
 * Vilnius (Polish: Wilno) was occupied by the German Army during most of WWI. R apparently retreated to the family estate at Bogdanov for the duration. After WWI Wilno/Vilnius became part of resurrected Poland.

Keep in mind that sca doesn't speak Polish, Lithuanian or Russian – he only knows a few words & phrases from each. But obviously, the "translation" of Ruszczyc from Lithuanian is a computer-generated travesty of English.

Lately I've been copy-editing Dissolution of the Soviet Union. Slow going.

Do widzenie... Sca (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ' I'm so sorry, Sca. (If you didn't see them, my latest comments in which I mentioned you are near the top of this page.) It had been so long since I looked at this that I had either forgotten about, or not seen, your additions in italics. Thanks for those, anyway, and for the list of facts just above. ' I couldn't find your "Sadbox" that contains the translations from Lithuanian and Polish from which I worked to write what's on this page. Also, do you know any editor who speaks or reads Polish? CorinneSD (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No worries. But hey, what's with my user-page stuff showing up here – but not showing in editing mode? Weird. Would like to delete it. Sca (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well! Now it's gone – ?? Sca (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It happened because I used a colon after "User" instead of a pipe after "U" when pinging you just above, and it took me a few seconds to figure out what I had done wrong. When I fixed the ping, it all disappeared. (Occasionally, I mix up the notification - User:User name in double square brackets -- with the ping - U|User name in curly brackets.) Sorry (again). CorinneSD (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

=A Different project=

Houses at Auvers
'''The following is paraphrasing from a link. See User talk:CorinneSD.'''

During the years of his short life, Vincent van Gogh struggled to find meaning and love. Even though he was often surrounded by artists, he was a lonely man and often felt misunderstood. On the one hand, his imagination served him well as a painter but on the other, added to his mental illness, it magnified his interpretation of what people thought of him. He influenced and encouraged other artists and was influenced by them. He painted from 1880 to 1890. He was a prolific artist: 864 paintings and almost 1,200 drawings and prints have survived. He first painted in his native country, the Netherlands, then moved to France. He was in Paris from 1886-1888, in Arles in the south of France from 1888-1889. He spent the year 1889-1890 in Saint-Rémy trying to recover from mental illness. From May, 20, 1890, until his death, July 29, 1890, he was in Auvers-sur-Oise, a little village that was home at various times to such artists Armand Guillaumin, Camille Pissarro, Charles-François Daubigny, Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot and Paul Cézanne. Throughout the months of May, June and July of 1890, van Gogh painted many paintings, including the fields and many of the peasants' huts in the area.

(Continued paraphrasing here. I struggled with this part. Feel free to revise.) ...He seemed to find the thatched huts especially fascinating. In a letter he wrote, "In my opinion, the most marvellous of all that I know in the sphere of architecture is huts with their roofs of moss-grown straw and a smoky hearth." His paintings were a personal representation of what he saw, and his emotions influenced, and are seen in, his composition (raised horizon, grouped houses, extensive fields, wavy trees), choice of palette (narrow, often luminous greens and yellows), and brushstrokes – "agitated and nervous brushstrokes which follow a waving and repetitive rhythm". - CorinneSD (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

' and ' Did you see this? I finished paraphrasing the big paragraphs Hafs placed on my talk page. It can be added right after the previous paraphrasing. CorinneSD (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

very good, move to article. Hafspajen (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Hafspajen Move it to the article even though I'm not finished? CorinneSD (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

[to be continued...] - oh, well, yes. Sorry about that. Is there any more material you worked on to add to Auvers? Hafspajen (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * - here. . Hafspajen (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh...I just saw this. Will work on it in a few hours, O.K.? CorinneSD (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Van Gogh's dedication to articulating the inner spirituality of man and nature led to a fusion of style and content that resulted in dramatic, imaginative, rhythmic, and emotional canvases that convey far more than the mere appearance of the subject. Although the source of much upset during his life, Van Gogh's instability provided the frenzied source for the emotional renderings of his surroundings and imbued each image with a deeper psychological reflection and resonance. Van Gogh's unstable personal temperament became synonymous with the romantic image of the tortured artist. His self-destructive talent that was echoed in the lives of many artists in the twentieth century. Van Gogh used an impulsive, gestural application of paint and symbolic colors to express subjective emotions. These methods and practice came to define many subsequent modern movements from Fauvism to Abstract Expressionism.

Clear examples of Van Gogh's wide influence can be seen throughout art history. The Fauves and the German Expressionists worked immediately after Van Gogh and adopted his subjective and spiritually inspired use of color. The Abstract Expressionists of the mid-twentieth century made use of Van Gogh's technique of sweeping, expressive brushstrokes to indicate the artist's psychological and emotional state. Even the Neo-Expressionists owe a debt to Van Gogh's expressive palette and brushwork. In popular culture, his life has inspired music and numerous films, including Vincente Minelli's Lust for Life (1956), which explores Van Gogh and Gauguin's volatile relationship.

Paraphrase of this last passage
One of van Gogh's aims was to express "the inner spirituality of man and nature". His imaginative and dramatic paintings depicted more than simply the houses, trees and fields that were his subjects: with his impulsive brushstrokes and symbolic colors, they reflected his emotions and his inner psychological state. His methods and symbolic use of color expressing an inner emotional life influenced subsequent artists such as those in the Fauves and the German Expressionists, and the later Abstract Expressionists and Neo-Expressionists.

 Hafs, what do you think of this paraphrase of the paragraphs just above it? CorinneSD (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this exactly what was missing from the article. I mean tragic circumstances and all that, but he - in a way -won. He won, trough his art... He fought for his art. Yes, he was living in misery, poverty, - but in his art, he never compromised. He never gave up, he never started painting cute pink little bestselling works..... He fought, he payed the price - but he won. And this is the great thing about his art, and this is why his works are valued so extremely high nowadays. --Hafspajen (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You could have gone ahead and added it to the article. I'll do that now. CorinneSD (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * But, I want you to edit that article too ... it has to be visible in the history... because people will check that when we co-nom. It should show... and it probably would be wise to make some kind of note about this page too, on the article talk. Otherwise somebody might say - oh, heh, you just let her sign the nomination, add a signature so she gets a new star while she never did a thing ... do you understand? Also, about Pilot's idea of involving more editors - it is nothing personal - but Adam, who is the coordinator and chief editor on the Featured part of the Signpost, has very precise ideas how he wants things - just check this - diff and you'll notice - and I think Adam was having a spat about how Pilot was editing Signpost, as he wrote on his page:, I spent four hours editing it yesterday, revising almost every entry, most after consultation with the articles (some of which are terrible - a couple of the worst bits were directly from articles,  which is rather annoying. And I am afraid, that Pilot's only reaction was removing the whole thing from his page and then just continuing the same way - those parts were directly from the article and had nothing to do with the painting at all - - and I don't know how to make him realize this. He is a very nice person and I like him a lot, and some of his photos are brilliant. But sincerely I fail to make point in editing the Signpost, and I don't think the solution is he should ask someone else do his part. We are quite enough people to cope at Signpost, we have new people too like the new overall chief editor too, Gamaliel who started editing - and some others too, and ... I sincerely think that this is not the solution. We also got criticized for this by the overall chief editors, like Go Phightins! at Adam's talk for loosing our earlier easier approach and adding a lot of heavy info that is already in the article and that was of course happening   because of all that copying text directly from articles... which we never do at Signpost, and never did before.

(Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)) And I also added '''Agree, .... trying to cover too much. I think people want to get their interest awaken, but not overpowered by too much academic information. Later, if they want, they can always look it up in the article later.... '''this discussion took place 30 January, and was a nice polite way of trying to solve this - but nothing happened. Since than the problem escalated, making Adam to withdraw from editing the Signpost - and that will not do. It will never function without him,and I am happy he returned to it. We had a tremendous problem coping at Signpost without him. Hafspajen (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OMG your claiming that I caused Adam to leave. I have had enough, and am shocked that you would blame this on me. your full of shit.  talk→   WPPilot   06:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I hardly know what to say. I didn't take it personally when you suggested I not start editing Signpost, but thank you just the same for saying it wasn't personal. I had no idea until I read this that all this was going on. Forgive me if I have misunderstood or missed anything. I'm writing this based only on what I read above. I don't know why User:WPPilot removed that discussion from his talk page. I guess he felt criticized, or that a lot of blame for a poor Signpost edition was falling on him. (WPPilot, I've learned from experience that Hafs often has difficulty expressing exactly what is on his/her mind; it can come out sounding like one thing when the truth is something else, so I've often had to ask a few clarifying questions before I really understand what s/he meant; it's partly due to his/her less-than-native ability with English and partly, I think, because s/he is always in a hurry; Hafs is a wonderful person and editor; it's worth not jumping to conclusions and taking the time to try and understand his/her real meaning.) Hafs, I don't know how WPPilot got involved in Signpost to begin with, whether he was invited to, or offered to, contribute, but is it possible that he was given no, or very little, instruction on how to do it? If that was the case, then no one should get upset with him for not writing it as expected. On the other hand, I think WPPilot could use some help with writing. Perhaps it would be good if he wrote what he wanted and then let me, you, or Adam proofread and polish before submitting it to Signpost. (You know I could learn what is required; I actually think WPPilot could, too.) It sounds like Signpost has certain parameters and style requirements that need to be learned; perhaps these were not explained to WPPilot before he started contributing. You and Adam maybe assumed too much. Then, when he was criticized, he just said, "Forget it." I know you said you explained things to him, but this may have been done quickly, not in a step-by-step manner, with examples. I saw what Adam wrote, but I detected a tone of frustration, and it was written after the fact, after the Signpost was published or near the time of publication. If you want new contributors, I think time needs to be taken to train them. I don't know if WPPilot is still interested in contributing, but if he is, I think Adam needs to tell him clearly what is required, and WPPilot would have to be willing to follow the guidelines. Finally, I just want to say that Signpost, while a regular on-line publication here on WP, is not equivalent to a publication by a major publishing company. It is, or should be, a group project of volunteer editors. Thus, it should not be expected to be perfect. There is value in allowing whoever is interested to contribute to the project, even if their contribution is not up to professional publishing standards. The collaboration process is important in and of itself. CorinneSD (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But of course he felt criticized, I am not THAT stupid that I don't understand it. I also know he liked a lot to edit it and he was doing a good job as a newbeginner.  Also possible that he was given no, or very little, instruction on how to do it - though when  he was given some instructions, he was ignoring them largely. I would prefer not to start gathering more diff, because I don't have time, but there were remarks here and there. .  Wish you wouldn't ping them though. I was trying to explain things for you privately, because I didn't wanted you to be offended. It was meant to you only. As for my difficulty expressing exactly what is on my mind ... well, no comment. But I stand my grounds and still say that we had enough problems with the new editors trying to cope - also - we need people who are fast, efficient, who can adapt and adjust, who can do things real fast and on their own without slowing down  the process by keeping explaining them every step and spending a lot of time answering their questions, - and by the way - Xanty never get any specific instructions and he did everything right from ther beggining. And now I really don't have time with this any more.    Hafspajen (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And I REALLY WISH SOMETIMES YOU WOULDN'T PING EDITORS  that I try to avoid hurting. It was really unnecessary. How do you think he was supposed to react when reading this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hafspajen&diff=650627654&oldid=650600246 Hafspajen (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This way now you succeeded to escalate something it was really unnecessary. If I had a mail, I could have mailed over everything. Hafspajen (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wish sometimes you could avoided pinging him, now he is hurt. I was TRYING TO BE DIPLOMATIC, bad English here or there. I am sorry I ever started this discussion with you, this was  indiscreet involving him.  I was trying to avoid hurting HIM and YOU. Now you succeeded to get everybody hurt.  Hafspajen (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 *  I'm sorry, but when I read that last diff that you provided just above, it does not sound like WPPilot is hurt at all. It sounds like he thinks you (and perhaps also Adam) were being unreasonable. I don't think you have to worry that he is hurt. If editors are polite and honest with each other, there is little chance that anyone will be hurt. Even though you "hid" your comment to me here, there is always a chance that WPPilot would see it anyway. It's more respectful to notify him of the discussion than talk behind his back and have him come across it on his own. (All right, from now on, I won't ping editors again when it looks like you are writing only to me.) You wrote, above, that WPPilot "was doing a good job as a newbeginner". If that is true, then he would do better with time. He is aware that his writing is not great and looked for an editor who could help with writing. If you think even if he and I work together, we would not contribute in an efficient or acceptable way to Signpost, at least at this time, all you have to do is say so directly and in a nice way. You said so to me and I said, "O.K." I don't know if you said so to WPPilot. I'm puzzled by your reaction. CorinneSD (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you still mad at me? CorinneSD (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The real issue here is total lack of communications. Haffy does not communicate well and I am tired of being on his yoyo. HE came to me, in January and asked to help. After I agree, he quits and dumps it all on me. There were some early issues regarding the style I use to create the paraphrased sections, and as the result of a total lack of communications Haffy tossed me under a bus. I do not like to be tossed under a bus. Adam went off on me, as he had published the root document 4 days late, so I, during a weekend I was sailing, was left with 72 hours to pound out the mistake. In the past I would spend 8 hours to do a nice job on the briefs and everyone like my work, so I was told, then the 3 day notice fro Haffy go go go (And thanks again in all the valuable work you put down on the Signpost. Go, go, go, - copy your work before save) that lead to this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WPPilot&diff=next&oldid=648740967 so now, when I try to do my first drafts Haffy goes off and {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CorinneSD#Signpost tells others not to help me, and specifically excludes them from participation]. This has become ridiculous and is simply put not worth the time required to address all the bullshit that Haffy seems to like to create. He is making things up to try and cover his own ass. What a joke! talk→   WPPilot   17:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Photos

 * You didn't wanted to? Sorry. Do you want me te remove it? ( Hope they don't think I am a vandal removing referenced material...) Hafspajen (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hafs Verb tenses and verb forms are important. You said, "Very good, move to article." "Move to article" is in the imperative form. That means you are telling or advising me to move what I've done to the article. With my next question, I just wanted to be sure you wanted me to move it even before I have finished. Now I see that you already moved it to the article. You need to say, "Very good. I have moved / I've moved it to the article." (present perfect tense) or "Very good. I moved it to the article." (past tense) Then I would know that you already moved it. I'm happy that you moved it! You know more than I do about writing articles. I've never written an article, and I'm pleased to be doing it even in a small way. Of course you should leave it there. We can always add to it. ;) CorinneSD (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I meant - I have moved in this case. It was well written and added to the article witch was mostly a stubb... Hafspajen (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it starts to look like a real article. So, WE have worked here together, so I think we can go co-nom any time you want. Hafspajen (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * UNLESS _ it is not comprimated or messed around with - I think we should ask first ... I was using an other screen before .. now I am not as sure any more. Here a new article ... Houses at Auvers. Scan looks a bit blurry.  Hafspajen (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that, although they did miss the focus a bit, it's still likely to pass. I'd finish with the article first though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(EC third time.) Oh...you mean now that there is a real article, we can nominate that painting? I'd love to co-nominate it with you. You don't want me to finish paraphrasing? I didn't get all the way through those big paragraphs you gave me. (What's that "nort comprimated"? Your English is getting worse, or is it your typing? ;) I think you mean "not compromised".) CorinneSD (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(I was just kidding.) Unless I see two scans of the same painting right next to each other, with one being very clear and the other, as you say, "a bit blurry", I don't think I would notice that. You'll have to judge the quality of the scan. CorinneSD (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC) I don't know what "comprimated" is. If you do mean "compromised", I don't even know what that means in terms of a scan. What does it mean? CorinneSD (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Woman you confuse me. Cry... Hafspajen (talk) 11:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ... what am supposed to say now?? Hafspajen (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "blurry": the way I see it, Van Gogh used impasto extensively in his works (van Gogh experts, feel free to tell me I'm mistaken). This is beautifully shown in File:Roses - Vincent van Gogh.JPG, but the Houses at Anvers scan makes it seem as if all the paint is at the same level. I think they missed the focus, very slightly. (You'd need to see the full size image to see what I mean) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Crisco. User:Hafspajen Do you know anyone who works at the museum who could take a better photo? I will finish the paraphrasing this afternoon. CorinneSD (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. is the one who could get uss a better scan, but he thought it was good enough to pass. Hafspajen (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I couldn't get the Toledo's MOA's scan, so Google is the best we're going to get. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, add it. Hafspajen (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Fish
fish (trying to get translation to Latin). CorinneSD (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

wall (trying to get translation to Persian to confirm what I think the word is). CorinneSD (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC) I was right. It's "devar". CorinneSD (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

conjunto insular (saving this so I can get a translation from Spanish to English). – Corinne (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

superficie – Corinne (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

más bien apenas 328 km² – Corinne (talk) 03:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

la política oficial – Corinne (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

dress

undress

Need word in French. – Corinne (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Ferdynand Antoni Ossendowski




English language
Preparing a comment for the talk page of the article on English language:

' and ', I hesitate to post this on the talk page of the English language article since there are so many experts out there. I would appreciate an objective and frank opinion about the following, which is just a draft. Thanks in advance. – Corinne (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not competent to comment on the content of your comments, but they are presented thoughtfully and with respect, so you go right ahead and post them.  E Eng  03:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, do indeed. (And 'Nr.' is German, isn't it?) Rothorpe (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

While I applaud anyone who in good faith tries to improve an article, I think additions to this article should be done cautiously. I have a few concerns about recent edits by ArchitectMan. ArchitectMan,  and several just previous to it.

1) This editor has made quite a few changes to content while leaving no edit summaries, contrary to WP:FIES.

2) Some of the changes made sentences rather long and unwieldy, such as in the lead. In two edits, material was added to the lead. This is the second of the two edits: . I think some of these sentences are now so long, unwieldy, and packed with information that they present comprehension problems to the average Wikipedia reader.

3a) Some of the changes are stylistically questionable, such as in this new material added in ', later made into one sentence in ':


 * Apart from being the most Romance Germanic language in terms of vocabulary, English also is the most North Germanic influenced West Germanic language, and, as an insular language, it developed independently of the continental West Germanic Frisian, Low German, German and Dutch, and is thus, differing in vocabulary, syntax and phonology, not mutually intelligible with these languages.

I refer especially to the phrase "the most most Romance Germanic language", but I also think the sentence is too long.

3b) or the change made in , changing the sentence from:


 * While Dutch and Afrikaans are classified as Franconian languages (nr. 25, 29 and 32), Standard German is based on Thuringian-Upper Saxon dialects (nr. 30), and therefore is more closely related to the North Sea Germanic languages.

to:


 * While Dutch and Afrikaans are classified as Franconian languages (nr. 25, 29 and 32), Standard German is based on Thuringian-Upper Saxon dialects (nr. 30), and therefore the three languages are about equally closely related to the North Sea Germanic languages.

where now there are two -ly adverbs in a row; only one adverb should be enough: "about equally related".

4) Also, some readers may find the numbers (referring to a map) added in  distracting. The map should speak for itself. (Besides that, "nr." is not the abbreviation for "number" in English.)

5) In , the editor changed "who" to "that", presumably thinking that since a frog is not a person, the word "who" should not be used; however, since the line is clearly personifying both the ghost and the frog, "who" would be appropriate here, and in my opinion should be changed back.

– Corinne (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Reply to two posts in progress. (DRAFT ONLY)

FAC
It's possible I could do something to help with conflicts over copyediting at FAC. How would you like to approach this? Are we looking at specific types of edits? Should we tweak the process to get more input from you and others? Clearly, we don't want a situation where copyeditors in general are feeling like their work is unappreciated or disregarded ... that would make it harder for people to get copyediting when they ask for it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking and for your concern, Dank. After I copy-edit an article that I have some interest in, I often keep it on my watch list for a while, and only sometimes do I look at the GA or FA review that usually follows. When I've spent hours copy-editing a long article, and really working hard on it, I do find it disappointing to have my wording changed, not just in one place but in several places throughout the article. I don't know what the solution is. I guess it's partly the nature of an on-line encyclopedia. If we were all sitting at nearby desks, we could discuss the edits before actually making them (which would be my first choice of approach when an article is in an FAC review). I did see Sarastro1's note to feel free to revert, but once an edit is made – particularly by a senior editor, and one who participates regularly at FAC – I feel extremely hesitant about reverting or even beginning a discussion. I feel all the other regulars at FAC will join in.


 * One of the reasons I haven't joined in at FAC is that some of the articles I've copy-edited for the GA review soon end up in an FAC review, and I thought those involved in the article (the writer, nominator, copy-editor) were not supposed to participate. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Another reason is that, when I read the commentary and the ensuing edits, I feel the reviewers often notice things I never even thought of when I copy-edited the article, so must be looking for certain kinds of things, and I don't know what those things are; I feel FAC reviewers must have much more experience editing academic articles than I do. I also see edits I wouldn't have made, but I would hesitate to argue about them with an experienced FAC reviewer. If you think my input would be helpful at FAC – in addition to catching grammatical, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation errors, I do notice things about organization and sentence flow – I would be glad to participate there.


 * I'm curious about something. I often read the day's featured article on the main page. As I read them, I sometimes find grammatical or spelling errors. I wonder how an article that has gone through an FA review and been approved for FA status could have any errors at all in it. I read the featured article that appeared on the main page on July 5, 2017, Head VI and made a few copy-edits. If you look at my  and ignore my addition of the no-break-space template and a few links, you will see no less than seven blatant errors that I corrected, and MisfitToys caught three or four others. I wonder if you think it might be a good idea to ask a member of the Guild of Copy Editors to copy-edit an article after it has been approved for FAC but before it goes onto the main page. Is it possible that FAC reviewers, because they are looking for certain things, might miss other types of things that copy-editors would see? Or is it that one or more editors are editing the article after the article has been reviewed and accepted for FA status?


 * I think Sarastro1 deserves a detailed reply to his comment on his user page, specifically about Macedonia (ancient kingdom), but I need more time to write it. – Corinne (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Sarastro1, upon re-reading all your edits, I see they are mostly fine. I think I overreacted, and I sincerely apologize. I can only attribute it to the mood I must have been in. There are just a few I would like to discuss, but read on at User talk:Corinne only if a detailed discussion of style will not irritate you.


 * (1) In Macedonia (ancient kingdom), I also would not have changed "and" to "but" and was glad you changed it back.


 * (2) In , I wouldn't have taken out the extra "was" at the beginning of this article. I think the phrase "bordered by" is far from the first "was", making the reader struggle to connect it to the subject ("the earliest kingdom"), especially because of the comma. Here is the sentence as it is now:


 * Home to the ancient Macedonians, the earliest kingdom was centered on the northeastern part of the Greek peninsula, and bordered by Epirus to the west, Paeonia to the north, Thrace to the east and Thessaly to the south.


 * I would either re-add "was" before "bordered by" or remove the comma after "peninsula" (I would also add a comma after "Thrace to the east"):


 * Home to the ancient Macedonians, the earliest kingdom was centered on the northeastern part of the Greek peninsula, and was bordered by Epirus to the west, Paeonia to the north, Thrace to the east, and Thessaly to the south.


 * or:


 * Home to the ancient Macedonians, the earliest kingdom was centered on the northeastern part of the Greek peninsula and bordered by Epirus to the west, Paeonia to the north, Thrace to the east, and Thessaly to the south.


 * (3) You changed "due to" to "owing two twice. I often see "due to" changed to "owing to" (or something else), and I wonder why. Americans rarely use "owing to", but use "due to" often. Also, why change from a short phrase to a longer phrase if they are both acceptable? In the  you changed:


 * PerdiccasII sided with Sparta in the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC) between Athens and Sparta, and in 429 BC Athens retaliated by persuading Sitalces to invade Macedonia, but he was forced to retreat due to a shortage of provisions in winter.


 * to:


 * PerdiccasII sided with Sparta in the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC) between Athens and Sparta, and in 429 BC Athens retaliated by persuading Sitalces to invade Macedonia, but he was forced to retreat owing to a shortage of provisions in winter.


 * I don't understand the reason for this change. Is it that you think "due to" is incorrect, or it is merely a stylistic choice? If you think "due to" is incorrect, I'd be interested to know why. If you think "due to" is acceptable, I'd be interested to know why you think "owing to" is better. Merriam-Webster on-line says the two phrases are synonyms and are equally acceptable. If two words or phrases are synonymous, I generally choose the shorter of the two.

Leaving this signature and time stamp even though I've re-arranged things because I don't know if I can remove it. – Corinne (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 4) In the second one, In , you changed:


 * After the Macedonian victory there, PhilipII installed an oligarchy in Thebes, yet was lenient toward Athens due to his desire to utilize their navy in a planned invasion of the Achaemenid Empire.


 * to:


 * After the Macedonian victory there, PhilipII installed an oligarchy in Thebes, yet was lenient toward Athens, wishing to utilize their navy in a planned invasion of the Achaemenid Empire.


 * I don't see what was wrong with the previous wording, grammatically, but I agree that "due to his desire" may be unnecessarily long. Also, if a verb could be found that would express the same thing, I believe a verb would be preferable to the noun "desire". I know some editors object to the use of "due to" almost on principle, but, as I mentioned above, according to Merriam-Webster on-line, "due to" and "owing to" are synonyms and are both equally acceptable. Did you change this because you objected to "due to" or because the phrase was too wordy or flowery, or something else? As an alternative, I would use "because of his desire to utilize" or "because he wanted to utilize". I also think "wishing" is a little too "wishful", or soft, a verb to describe the plans of a strong military leader. I often use participial phrases at the end of a sentence, but here I don't think it is the best construction. I think it minimizes what follows, to the point where one wonders why it was even mentioned, and removes an explicit indication of the relationship between his leniency and his wish to utilize the navy. Another thing that complicates this, at least for an American reader, is the word "their", in "their navy", which is a little ambiguous since we don't use the plural pronouns or possessive adjective for a city (or country), which is always singular in US English. If we used a possessive adjective at all, it would be "utilize its navy". But, that aside, I would either leave it as it was:


 * After the Macedonian victory there, PhilipII installed an oligarchy in Thebes, yet was lenient toward Athens due to his desire to utilize their navy in a planned invasion of the Achaemenid Empire.


 * or change it to something like:


 * After the Macedonian victory there, PhilipII installed an oligarchy in Thebes, yet was lenient toward Athens because he wanted to utilize their navy in a planned invasion of the Achaemenid Empire.


 * Another alternative is to remove the adjective "planned" from the last phrase since it is PhilipII himself who was planning the invasion, and move it earlier and use it as the verb:


 * After the Macedonian victory there, PhilipII installed an oligarchy in Thebes, yet was lenient toward Athens because he wanted planned to utilize their navy in an planned invasion of the Achaemenid Empire. (Whatever PhilipII planned probably usually took place.)

(5) Upon looking again at , I realize that the way it was worded, "with Macedonian soldiers fighting" was not good, because it was about a later battle, not the same battle, so you were right to change it. I wonder, since the Battle of Plataea was fought during the time of XerxesI, whether we couldn't cut out a few extra words here, changing:


 * AlexanderI provided Macedonian military support to Xerxes I ((r. 486–465 BC – undefined)) during the Second Persian invasion of Greece in 480–479 BC, and Macedonian soldiers fought on the side of the Persians at the 479BC Battle of Platea.


 * to:


 * AlexanderI provided Macedonian military support to Xerxes I ((r. 486–465 BC – undefined)) during the Second Persian invasion of Greece in 480–479 BC, and Macedonian soldiers fought on the side of the Persians at the 479BC Battle of Platea – yielding:


 * AlexanderI provided Macedonian military support to Xerxes I ((r. 486–465 BC – undefined)) during the Second Persian invasion of Greece in 480–479 BC and at the 479BC Battle of Platea.


 * The only way this would be incorrect is if it were not correct to say "AlexanderI provided Macedonian military support to XerxesI at the 479BC Battle of Platea.


 * P.S. I wonder why it says "Battle of Platea" when the WP article title is Battle of Plataea. There is a redirect, but still, why spell it differently from the WP article?

6) In , you changed "must have established" to "established". I didn't see what was wrong with "must have established"; I thought it indicated a certain degree of certainty, but still a guess, on the part of Errington. (Is there a rule against using "must" or "must have" in WP articles?) If you prefer the simple verb, I would put it in past perfect: "had established":


 * Historian Robert Malcolm Errington suggests that one of the earliest Argead kings had established Aigai (modern Vergina) as their capital in the mid-7th centuryBC.

7) In that sentence, you have "Historian Robert Malcolm Errington. In another edit you first added "The linguist" before the name Robert S.P. Beekes, then, in , removed "the", changing "The linguist Robert S.P. Beekes" to "Linguist Robert S.P. Beekes". I have had extensive discussions with Rothorpe about this (see User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 15). I always wrote this way, too, and it still sounds right to me, but I have been convinced by Rothorpe that "Linguist" would then constitute a False title, and is an example of "journalese". I'll leave it up to you what, if anything, you want to do about this. Any thoughts, Rothorpe? – Corinne (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Checking something regarding the conversion template
 I saw that you had rounded off all the outcome figures in the conversion templates in Booker T. Washington State Park (West Virginia) and that you used the "sigfig=1" method for each. I didn't know how familiar you were with the conversion templates, but I usually use a number after the last pipe rather than sigfig. You can use either, of course, but (and I'm not an expert; this is just my own thinking on this) I wanted to suggest that if the input figure is not particularly rounded off, there is no reason to drastically round off the output figure. I think with the numbers following the pipe, you can make a more nuanced rounding of the output figure. Unless you think it is really not important, I think it is worth treating each conversion individually, and selecting the number that would make the most sense. I have taken the first four conversions in the Booker T. Washington State Park article and labeled them so you can see the conversion method used. I indicated to the right which ones I would use. You'll see that these were produced using different numbers after the pipe, not always the same one.

967 acres only the basic template – I would use this one, 967 acres adding sigfig=1 after pipe 967 acres adding -1 after pipe 967 acres adding 0 after pipe – or this one (same outcome). 967 acres adding 1 after pipe

0.86 miles only the basic template – I would use this one, 0.86 miles adding sigfig=1 after pipe 0.86 miles adding -1 after pipe 0.86 miles adding 0 after pipe 0.86 miles adding 1 after pipe – or this one. Why go down to 1kilometer when it is nearly 1.5kilometers?

– Corinne (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

7.43 acres only the basic template 7.43 acres adding sigfig=1 after pipe – I would use this one, 7.43 acres adding -1 after pipe 7.43 acres adding 0 after pipe – or this one. 7.43 acres adding 1 after pipe

732 ft only the basic template – I would use this one, 732 ft adding sigfig=1 after pipe 732 ft adding -1 after pipe 732 ft adding 0 after pipe – or this one. Why go down to 220 or 200 when 732 is not particularly rounded off? Also, that additional 3meters is equivalent to more than 9feet, which is quite a difference. 732 ft adding 1 after pipe

– Corinne (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Preparing comments following a copy-edit of SMS Hannover
1) In the first paragraph in the lead, you have this sentence:


 * Hannover and the three subsequently constructed ships differed slightly in both design and construction from the lead ship SMS Deutschland (1904) in their propulsion systems and slightly thicker armor.

It took me a minute to figure out that "the lead ship" was the first-built of the five ships. I am thinking of the average Wikipedia reader. I don't think the average Wikipedia reader will know what "the lead ship" really means.

2) Later in the lead, you have this sentence:


 * The ships of her class were already outdated by the time they entered the service, being inferior in size, armor, firepower, and speed to the revolutionary new British battleship HMS Dreadnought (1906).

When I read, "entered the service", I wondered what "the service" was. Because of the definite article, "the", it's got to refer to a specific service. Do you think it will be clear to the average reader that "the service" means the German High Seas Fleet? I wonder if you would consider removing the definite article, and have it read "entered service". Does that phrase work with this subject matter?

3) The first sentence of the second paragraph reads as follows:


 * Hannover and her sisters saw extensive service with the fleet.

I think this is the first time you use "sisters" to refer to the ships built at the same time as Hannover as "sisters". I wonder if you would consider using the phrase "sister ships" just this once. After that, you could use "sisters".

4) I noticed that you used the day-month-year British date format throughout the article. Thus, I assume that the article is written using British English. (There's always Canadian, Australian, and Indian English, but I don't think those would be applicable to an article on a German ship.) Thus, I wonder why you use the American English spelling of "maneuver". British English would spell it "manoeuvre". I didn't change it in case there was something of which I wasn't aware, but I thought I'd mention it. I know there are some particularities regarding style in military history articles, and perhaps "maneuver" is one of them.

5) I saw you used em-dashes in several places. My preference is for spaced en-dashes, so I changed the em-dashes to en-dashes, but if you really prefer the em-dashes, let me know and I'd be glad to change them back.

6) Twice, I changed "in the mouth" to "at the mouth" of the river. I had never heard "in the mouth" of a river. It is a given that the ship is in the water, and floating or cruising on the river, but the location is at the mouth of the river. If "in the mouth" is common military jargon, I don't know about it, and in any case, I think we should use language that is understood and used by the average Wikipedia reader.

7) The first two sentences of the "World War I" section are the following:


 * Following the outbreak of World War I, Hannover was tasked with guard duty in the Altenbruch roadstead at the mouth of the Elbe River during the period of mobilization for the rest of the fleet. In late October, the ships were sent to Kiel to have modifications made to their underwater protection systems to make them more resilient to torpedoes and mines.

I'm not sure it is clear what ships are meant with the phrase "the ships". Also, I'm just wondering about the word "resilient". Does it mean just that, to make it so the hulls are more flexible and can "bounce back" after being hit by a torpedo or a mine? If not, perhaps "impervious" would work?

8) Later in that paragraph, you have the following sentence:


 * However, skirmishes between the rival destroyer screens in the darkness convinced the German fleet commander, VAdm Friedrich von Ingenohl, that the entire Grand Fleet was deployed before him.

The reader could guess what "destroyer screens" means, but I don't think readers should have to guess. You might want to explain or link the word "screens".

9) Then you have the word "battlefleet". Is that really a word? If not, perhaps "battle fleet" or just "fleet".

10) In the second paragraph, you have this sentence:


 * This was followed by another resultless sweep by the fleet on 23–24 October.

I don't think "resultless" is a word. Depending upon what you really mean, you might want to substitute one of these words:


 * futile
 * fruitless
 * unproductive
 * unsuccessful
 * vain

If you don't like any of these, look up "futile" (or any of these words) in a thesaurus and you'll see lists of related words. You can look at the definition of each word to find the one that expresses exactly what you mean.

Also, it's not really clear what is meant by "another...sweep".

11) The second-to-last paragraph in the "Battle of Jutland" section starts:


 * Late on the 31st,...

I didn't recall reading "the 31st" anywhere, and it has been so long since you mentioned any date that readers may be mystified by this phrase. One paragraph earlier, you have "Later on the first day of the battle", but I'm not even sure when that was.

12) In the last paragraph of the "Later actions" section, you have "Armistice", linked. Then the word appears three more times, first capitalized, then lower-case, and finally capitalized. These ought to be consistent, but I'm not sure they need to be capitalized. You might want to give this some thought, and perhaps read some other articles and see how it is handled.

13) At the end of the first paragraph in "Postwar service", you have this sentence:


 * She visited Stockholm from 18 to 22October, where Rosenberg was received by Gustaf V of Sweden.

A few sentences earlier, his full name was given. I believe his family name was "vonRosenberg", not just "Rosenberg". Shouldn't this be "vonRosenberg"?

Well, that's all. – Corinne (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)