User talk:Brianboulton/Archive4

Sunderland Echo
Hi Brianboulton. I just wanted to say thankyou very much for your extremely detailed Peer Review of Sunderland Echo. Have just started on your suggested improvments list, and really appreciate all the hard work you put into it. Just one question: How do I format the further reading list? (Which I've hacked to bits!)-- seahamlass  12:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Scottish National Antarctic Expedition
Nice work on this article, thanks. It's been duly inluded in the Portal, featuring this week :)

Cheers -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  21:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

PR experiment
Dear Brianboulton, I'm writing in hopes of enlisting your aid in a four-month experiment at Peer Review (PR). The success of the experiment will depend on finding at least 10 editors willing to review at least one article a week through the end of October 2008. The experiment will employ a streamlined review process designed to insure that every nominator who seeks a review gets one and that reviewers do not waste time doing long reviews for nominators who do not respond to an initial short review.

The way it works is this: (1) Choose any article at Peer Review that lacks a review. Peer reviews by date, especially the backlog list, is still a good place to find such articles. (2) Provide a short partial review based on your initial observations and wait to see if the nominator responds. Examples of short reviews can be found at Peer review/Foreign relations of India/archive1 and Peer review/Ed Stelmach/archive1. (3) If the nominator does not respond, the review is done. (4) If the nominator responds, continue the review as you see fit.

The experiment will require no noticeable administration. However, if you plan to participate, it would be helpful if you posted a brief note to Wikipedia talk:Peer review to that effect. At the end of October, we can see how the experiment turned out and whether this process or some modification of it could sustain Peer Review permanently with minimal backlogs. If you can help, that would be great. If not, that's perfectly OK. We are all tremendously busy with a lot of different projects.

I have chosen to write to you in part because you've done peer reviews from the backlog during the past four months. Please forgive the form-letter nature of this note, which is more efficient than a personal note. With respect and thanks for your hard work on many projects, Finetooth (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hey dude, you did the peer review for the Terrible Towel article; just wanted to let you know it passed as a GA today. Your suggestions helped a lot, Thanks!  Black  ngold29   06:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations and thanks!
Just saw that William Speirs Bruce made FA - congratulations! Thanks too for all of your hard work at Peer review! Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sunderland Echo
Thanks Brian! (I'm trying to work in all your suggestions, and have re-written the lead etc..) It is a hard piece to do, actually, as there are so few FA/GA newspaper articles to draw inspiration from on Wikipedia - and none at all, that I can find, on British provincial papers. I don't want to go off into the realms of lists either - for instance I've just referenced awards etc rather than writing them down - so any further advice you could spare would be extremely welcome! Many, many thanks once again.-- seahamlass  14:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: Further reading formatting.

This is as far as I've got - please could you do the twiddling - then I'll know what to do next time. Some details are very vague, as I was unable to come up with any more info. Obviously, as all four are old, none have ISBN numbers.


 * The Durham Thirteen: Biographical sketches of the Members of Parliament returned for the City, Boroughs, and County of Durham, at the general election of 1874. Author: Northern Echo Publisher: J Hyslop Bell, Darlington. 1874.
 * Parliamentary Representation of the Six Northern Counties: By William Wardell Bean. Published by Hull in 1890. Today held by the Robinson Library, University of Newcastle.
 * The Alderman magazine. Published April 8, 1876
 * Wearside Review: Local notabilities. Published by the Sunderland Daily Echo in 1886
 * Book and News Trade Gazette: October 6, 1894

Thankyou!-- seahamlass  12:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Brian - Happy Birthday! Many thanks for the formatting help. Much appreciated. Like I said above, I'm finding this quite a hard article to do, as there is no real precendent set for an English provincial newspaper at GA/FA. Apparently The Philadelphia Inquirer is the only featured newspaper article (that I've been told about anyway..) while The Wall Street Journal, Washington Blade and The Technique are listed as good articles. None, however, is a provincial English newspaper, and they all seem to have very different styles of writing - and all different formats. (I've only taken one article to FA, an English village, which was much easier to format, as there are set guidelines for these type of articles.) Sorry about the rambling! I had hoped to put in the circulation figure of the paper over the years as well, but the ABC figures only go back six years, and there is no other record kept (that I've found so far), so I think I may be almost done now - apart from some touching up etc.-- seahamlass  11:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Brian, your awards section expansion etc suggestion is great! I'll sort it out today. Did you see I cut three pics from the text, as well as most of the statue story? (Per your suggesstion). I'll let you know when I'm done. (Just trying to make a pipe xylophone at the moment, so have to try and finish that first(!) Thankyou, once again!-- seahamlass  11:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Brian, waiting for the glue to dry, so had a quick fiddle around. Could you take another look when you get a chance? Many thanks, -- seahamlass  12:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added an awards list - but put it in a fold-up box thingy like the one in The Philadelphia Inquirer Featured article, so not too noticeable/listy I hope. Have also added a small circulation/price graph - which meant taking out another pic. I've also had another look at the refs, as you suggested. Any better?-- seahamlass  22:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Brian, thanks for everything. You have been a huge help. I'll leave you in peace now, honest! -- seahamlass  22:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Brian, sorry to trouble you again... But, as you are the holder of so many coveted FA stars, could I please ask you a question? Echo is now at FAC and has attracted some comments, which have been fixed. Do I go back to these people and ask for a support/oppose - or should I leave it in their hands? I have already put messages on their talk pages, saying the stuff has been done, but i don't want to appear too pushy! Thankyou-- Seahamlass  13:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I've worked on the piece quite a bit over the last few days, so hopefully you will think it is looking OK.-- Seahamlass  16:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Brian, many thanks for the comments at FAC. I have tried to address all your concerns, especially the repetitious phrases etc. Hopefully, you will find it a bit better now if you fancy taking another look. One quick thing - I didn't remove your measuringworth.com footnotes - honest! They are at numbers 21 and 23 and I like them too much to take out! The only thing changed about them is that I removed the "bare url web refs" - following another comment from an FAC reviewer. The website won't let me cite to the direct conversion page, as I've tried. It just brings up a page saying you haven't put in any figures for a conversion.-- Seahamlass  12:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello again. Thanks for your further comments, and agree with everything. I've carried out the changes suggested, and hope they fit in with what you envisaged.-- Seahamlass  13:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Last time - on this anyway...! It got the old FA nod last night and I just wanted to thank you for all your help and support. It was your in-depth peer review which initially spurred me on to do just that bit more than I'd intended, and then your continued suggestions really helped too. I really, really appreciate what you have done. Thanks!-- Seahamlass  07:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Celilo
So very sorry, I have a ton of articles on my watch list and am working on a number of things...your review escaped my notice! I will get to it right away, and please don't take my distraction as any reflection on the value of your review…I simply hadn't seen it yet. I've been eagerly awaiting feedback on the article, and will take a look immediately. -Pete (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As another editor on the Celilo article, just wanted to say thanks, as well. You gave an excellent review -- much appreciated! I haven't had time to address the concerns and may not have time for a few weeks. If other editors aren't able to get to it and the article fails, we can always renominate. Your comments will be a big help with improvements. best, Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ernest Joyce
Hi Brian. Yes, I'd be glad to read and comment on Ernest Joyce. I'll do that later today. Finetooth (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You are most welcome. I'll be traveling during the next two weeks, and I'll be depending on a variety of Internet connections that may be good or bad. If I disappear at times, it will most likely be because I'm in a place with no connection. I'd be glad to weigh in at FAC, but my response time might be really slow until I get home, probably around 20 July. Finetooth (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Going to the library...
This week sometime, anything from JSTOR/etc. you want/need�? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization
I see you've changed the capitalization for the list. I should explain that we use English capitalization for English titles, Italian for Italian, German for German, see WikiProject_Opera. Best. -- Klein zach  14:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ernest Joyce FAC
I will weigh in a the next few days - unfortunately my internet access is very limited right now. Sorry for the delay, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Found a bit of time and supported - well done! Any chance Mrs Chippy could get to FA :o) Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was joking, but it has since occurred to me that if it were FA, it would be a great April Fools FA (Mrs Chippy but really a male, shot when food ran low, all sorts of true but misleading statements could be made). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if we're slow!
All the points on Arthur Sullivan should be dealt with in the end, but it takes a little time to get it right. =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Mastermind (TV series)
Brian, have you ever considered this? Graham. Graham Colm Talk 20:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Preckwinkle
Is Toni Preckwinkle on hold. Its talk page does not indicate as such.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Sullivan
Just a note - still working through your suggestions, slowly getting there =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * =) Well, that's why we work on these: Because we want to share our interest. I haven't decided yet on how to handle the split, simply because whatever we don't put under Arthur Sullivan is going to end up much, much less read. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Mozart
Sorry to take a bit to reply: My father arrives tomorrow - Indeed, he should be travelling to the airport already for his gruelling 22 hours of travel. =/ The basic suggestions for FLC are to make sure every single entry has a reference (the best way is probably to attach the reference(s) to the title of each opera), or in a "references" column. Featured list reviewers, perhaps understandably, want to be sure that every item on the list is justified.

From my experience with featured lists, this looks largely fine, given the low featured list requirements. Hence, you can safely ignore the next sentence: I'd be inclined to include a brief plot summary of each opera, and a discussion of Mozart's growth as a composer of opera.

I'll try to give a more in-depth review if I get a little free time today =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Referencing
You clearly know your stuff, and have the resources. The main problems are as follows:

1. I'd integrate at least some of the footnoted comments into the text

2. the footnotes give an illusion of referencing, however, I don't think any opera in the list itself is actually fully referenced. You need at least one reference per row, that covers the entire row (it may contain several sources, and you can use the same ref over and over, but you'll die at FLC if you don't)

3. One footnote, "1964 revision K. 424a", is probably significant and should be noted in the article proper.

4. The prose is possibly a bit too scholarly. While keeping all the information, see if you can tone it down to a level where, say, a 16 year old writing a paper on Mozart would find it easy to use.

Toni Preckwinkle
I am not sure if you will be following the GA1 page anymore so I am asking here how you think redundancy in the Early Life and Outside interest sections should be handled.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Opera Scores from NMA
Hello, the current NMA link in Mozart composition articles looks like this: But it could be something as simple as Score in the table. Then, if you want, a link to NMA could be added in the header of the table. This could be easily customized to fit your personal preferences. DavidRF (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Another Peer Review Request
Hi Brian. I wonder if I could impose on you for another peer review of General aviation in the United Kingdom. I'm thinking of having a stab at FAC this time. Since your last peer review, I have... I'm not sure that you need to re-review those parts you reviewed last time, unless there is anything obviously (and I mean really obviously) FAC-threatening about them, and a review of the main changes listed above will be enough to convince me of the article's readiness, or otherwise, for FAC. You've already been a great help in the development of this article, so if you can't help this time, no problem, I'll cast around for someone else. Watchlisting your talk page for a reply. Cheers. --FactotEm (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Made the changes you suggested, or in the few cases where I have not, explained why;
 * Re-ordered the sections for a more logical flow;
 * Added a brief History section;
 * Expanded the Criticism section;
 * Copyedited it as best I can.
 * I'll be pleased to help. I'd prefer to read the whole article, rather than just the new bits. What kind of timescale are we talking about? - only I've committed myself to do a lengthy GA review, and also have a couple of projects of my own. It would help me if you could add a few comments at PR to Scottish National Antarctic Expedition. User:Ruhrfisch is reviewing it at the moment, but I would also value a completely new perspective, from someone who hasn't looked at my work before. Brianboulton (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever timescale you can manage. Having already done so much, I did not want to ask too much more of you, but if you're happy to take it all on again, that's grand. I'll see what I can do for SNAE. Cheers. --FactotEm (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See User:Factotem/Sandbox for work so far. Is this the sort of review you're after? --FactotEm (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. You asked for it. BTW - I've been to the Antarctic Peninsula. I can't see that any of your articles would need any sub-standard images of ice-bergs or cute penguins, but if you do need any general images for your Antarctica articles, I can make some available. --FactotEm (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm done with the picky stuff now. Feel free to strike out my comments in the PR as you address them, including those where your answer is a rebuttal - no problem here with those. I'll keep the PR watchlisted and jump in with any clarification/discussion you might want, if any. Cheers. --FactotEm (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've set up a new peer review page for GA in the UK. I appreciate your help in this, and I'll say again there really is no rush here. Thanks. --FactotEm (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Scottish National Antarctic Expedition - PR
I don't think I have ever been thanked so much for adding doing to a PR request ;-) you are very welcome. It is nice to read your work as it is always very close to FA quality, which is a nice change of pace from some of the PRs I do where the article needs to expand the lead, add refs, etc. Plus I actually enjoy reading about Antacrtic exploration. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I got bogged down in my current FAC - will get to the PR in the next 24 hours. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done
...with the copyedit of Everglades; some of the edits I made directly, and I added comments to the talk page. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In my sandbox here, you can find two versions of the history section: one with a 10% reduction of material, and one with a 50% reduction. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks again for your time and effort. --Moni3 (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Oldham Athletic A.F.C. managers peer review
Thank you for your feedback. I'll try to make changes to the article and any in the future. :) – 'Latics (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The Phony Gardener
Congrats on the FLC promotion - I'm glad that I finally squeezed under the wire, having promised to do so a couple of days ago. My subliminal point about La finta giardiniera was that consistency is often lacking in Wikipedia and should be improved, but that in this case what needs amending is the article, not the list - the translation in the article takes no account of the femininity of the gardener. I'll alter it when I've got time. My preferred translation is "She's no gardener!", but that's probably a bit too radical. Best. --GuillaumeTell 23:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Washington, D.C.
Hi! I wanted to thank you again for your peer review and I just wanted to let you know that the article is currently at WP:FAC! Best, epicAdam (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Mozart list
Congratulations! Sorry I didn't send you a note at the time: Just got back from surprisingly sunny Inverness. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Happy to help; it's a great list, worthy of its FL status! MeegsC | Talk 04:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

GA in the UK FAC
Hi Brian. In your 2nd peer review of this article you asked me to let you know when it is nominated for FAC. It's nominated now. Thanks for all your help. --FactotEm (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

FA
I see that you review Featured Article Candidates, can you pre FAC review SummerSlam (2003). I plan on nominating it for FAC in the future.-- S R X  15:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll reply here since you don't keep a talk page. I'll be pleased to look over Summerslam (2003), but it may be a couple of days before I get to it. Hope that's OK. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do keep a talk page, its in my signature. Thanks. That'll be fine.-- S R X  20:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review, I would appreciate if you replied to my responses on the peer review page. Thank you :)-- S R X  14:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your interpretation, I tried to improve the article based on yours and other FA reviewers comments, is it any better. (Reply on PR page) Thank You.-- S R X  17:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that review of the background, I addressed all of your comments. S R X  00:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * After much that has been done, IYO, would SummerSlam have a chance at FAC?-- S R X  23:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

William de St-Calais
I think he's ready for a second look. I tried to resolve the naming muddle (I went with St-Calais, instead of William, because so many folks at FAC want last names used...even though it's not strictly his last name...) I did some expansion on the article, since I got in some new sources ... I think it's basically done, might be a sentence or three I add in later, but it's pretty much set. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd LOVE to have you do a CE. (insert proper begging here). Let me get those changes you suggest in (probably by tomorrow, depending on how spacey this sinus medicine makes me...) and go for it! I'll drop you a note here when I'm done with changes. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * All done. The red linked tractae title remains, I need to write it badly. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be better if you wrote it well. Brianboulton (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (snorts) No fair making me almost spill diet coke on my keyboard! Thanks, I needed that laugh. By the way, your latest FAC looks the usual good effort, good luck with it! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Pauline Green
Hi,

Just wanted to say thanks for your detailed work on reviewing the Pauline Green article - not sure who renominated, but your comments co-incided with my summer holiday so I couldn't make the changes you asked for. Will get to it as soon as I've caught up with work! Just didn't want you to feel you'd wasted your time. JonStrines (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review Request
Hey Brianboulton, I currently have the article The Great American Bash (2005) up for Peer review. I come to you in hopes of you reviewing the article, as I'm aiming to get this article prepared for Featured Article status. I would really appreciate if you would take some time and review this article to the best of your abilities. Cheers, -- iMa tth ew  T.C. 00:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

SNAE FAC
Hey. Good luck with the FAC. I've been half watching your changes since the PR, but over the next few days I'll give the article a more attentive read through and weigh in at the FAC. Cheers. --FactotEm (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Farthest South
Farthest South has passed GA. Great job with it. -- Meldshal  [T]   {C}  20:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)