User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 11

Re: Aurora's drift
Hi Brian, thank you for your remarks at the Battle of Barnet peer review. It is okay for it to be piecemeal, as long as issues are found. Regarding Aurora drift, I think we could take lessons from Mozart in Italy. Since the title is not a proper noun, perhaps an explanatory statement could work.


 * From 7 May 1915 to 12 February 1916, the Antarctic expedition ship SY Aurora drifted in the Ross Sea and Southern Ocean pack ice. The ship ...

If we keep the bolded title, how does this sound ("refer" not rid of, but I think the use of it here is more appropriate)?
 * Aurora's drift refers to the 282-day ordeal of Antarctic expedition ship SY Aurora as it was trapped in pack ice and carried by the currents of the Ross Sea and Southern Ocean. Aurora ...

Do they meet the mark? Jappalang (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Agrippina
I'm really sorry: I think that you have handled things very well, but I've been a bit ill again, so I mainly just tried to get some work in when I felt up to it, and ignored things when I didn't. I could probably have communicated better, but you seemed to be doing an excellent job, and so I didn't really feel the need to interfere.

As for the current status: We'll have to wait and see if Awadewit finds anything in Dean and Knapp, and it may be worth tweaking the musical numbers list a little more, but it's pretty clear this is going to pass FA.

On the whole, I think this is an excellent overview of Agrippina, and well deserving of Featured article status. There is one stupid thought I had about a possible sub-article, but I've deleted my commentary on it literally 20 times in a row to try rephrasing it, and it's not important: Basically, the article itself - whether as a maiin article or on its own, is an excellent overview to the subject, and while we might get a featured list subarticle out of all borrowings in Agrippina, would it actually be useful to our intended readers?

Well, anyway, talk to you later on! Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 06:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Awadewit just sent me the chapter.

* I don't think the section from the last paragraph of 125 through to the first of 128 are worth discussing. Too detailed and technical. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC) * Last paragraph of 128 allows us to lose the bolded words in "It premiered in Venice at the Teatro San Giovanni Grisostomo on or around 26 December 1709." and likewise to cut the later section's "The date of Agrippina's first performance, at Venice's Teatro San Giovanni Grisostomo is uncertain. It is usually given as 26 December 1709, and was certainly during December 1709 or January 1710". Dean and Knapp is a reliable source for overruling lesser sources. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC) *p. 130 not much use to us. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC) *I don't think anything after 133 worth including, though Appendix D would be useful if we wanted to make that list of borrowings I mentioned. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First thought: Maybe we should mention the scene changes in the synopsis? (Though there must be a more idiomatic translation than "Agrippina's closet"!). However, beyond that, we can probably ignore the chapter up to page 117, as it covers the plot, which between you and Moreschi should be quite sufficient Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * see my comment on your talkpage
 * Bits on page 117-18 could help fill out the rather over-short discussion of the quality of the libretto. At the moment, we have one example, then move on to general praise of the opera - Dean and Knapp gives numerous quotes we could add that would round out the section. The historical basis also discussed 117-18 would also be worth including. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you like to do this?
 * The discussion on 118 putting Agrippina's plot into its timeframe would also be worth including - heavily abriged, maybe, but a sentence or two, and maybe a little clarification of the Coronation of Poppea discussion. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * perhaps you could do ths, too?
 * p. 119 (last paragraph) has material that might justify a little editing of the "Music" section. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but let me do this - I am working on the Music section Done now
 * p. 120-25 may be worth heavily summarising to discuss Handel's characterisation of the characters in his music. Certainly nowhere near that length, though.  Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest this, and will do. Done within the revised Music section
 * Agreed
 * I have dealt with this. Done
 * p. 129 is possibly a better source for the alt version of Ingannata in the aria list. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed
 * Agreed
 * p. 131-133 doesn't seem particularly useful, though, if we wanted, we could include a single example from it. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly, will consider further
 * I intend to look at this part again tonight as I haven't studied it closely yet. I think that the borrowings issue is adequately covered already.

*I'm not sure how useful Appendix F is, but if you wanted, I wouldn't say no to mentioning more modern performances. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am adding a sentence on modern performances that mentions the one in Venice in 1983, and the rash of American productions after Fort Worth in 1985. Done
 * Anyway, that's how I see the material. Are my views roughly in line with yours? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so. If you work on the areas I've suggested above and I stick to my bits and pieces, all should be well. Keep in touch. Brianboulton (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Though you have given me the easy parts, I think =) In any case, I'll do it by tonight, but need to lie down for a little bit first. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. Coming out of that bad funk (well, for a slightly delusional definition of "coming out of"), and will start work shortly. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Boss pics
I've already replaced the deleted image with a substitute (I didn't put the disputed image back, perhaps I should have been clearer in my edit summary). Yomangani talk 12:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, you know what you're doing. Brianboulton (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you so much for your helpful review of Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell - as always, your careful attention to prose and sourcing is much appreciated! Awadewit (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Agrippina
Gotcha. Sorry I'm a bit slow today. Suffice it to say that my lunch - the first food in 24 hours - decided it didn't like me, and left again. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

4 colors
hey, glad to see you commenting at that 4 color PR. i am very busy with other stuff now, but i like the topic and would do a complete review of the article at a certain level. i am relatively informed, more highly qualified than the regular lay person editor asked for (i have at >= 1 math degrees under my belt). but I always feel inadequate to the complete task of PR, besides being busy. if you'd follow up to round out my review, i would go ahead, or i promise to follow with more after you. it would be nice to have the article marked in progress, because there are only 4 items in PR backlog right now, it being the oldest (wouldn't marking it "doing" take it off that list? not sure of the protocol). doncram (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Doing" doesn't take it off the backlog. Like you I'm pretty busy elsewhere at present, but I prowl constantly around PR, and if the article hasn't been picked up in a couple of days I'll definitely do it. But if you want to comment meantime, please do. Brianboulton (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Agrippina
Hi, Wolfenbüttel-Berlin is the place of publication of the reference whose title, editor and date are already mentioned in the text. Please feel free to fill out the footnote; I admit it might look a little enigmatic... Sparafucil (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, situations happened in the last couple days: I nearly fainted on Saturday, Sunday and Monday had some rather horrible things that left me in no mood to do anything, and, well...
 * I'm sorry I've not been exactly reliable. I am trying my best. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I can manage nothing =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I respectully disagree
See the FAC page for History of the Han Dynasty.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 19:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just sending a ping
to see whether you might have time to copyedit Symphony No. 1 (Rachmaninoff). You'd suggested that I ping around the end of March. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on Agrippina yet, but perhaps by the end of this week? Be patient a little longer. Please note: if I do the Rachmaninoff it will be copyediting pure and simple, since I know next to nothing about him and am not really familiar with the work either. Brianboulton (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Anything you could do, whenever you could get to it, would be appreciated. Jonyungk (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations
Just saw a certain opera made FA! Well done, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Agrippina on the main page
I've set up the request at Today's_featured_article/requests - I hope you don't mind. Feel free to tweak this. =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 08:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Grant PR
I have read Grant's wonderful autobiography and had started to look at this article for a brief review - I will make a few obvious comments and the archive - a carrot and a stick. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Noel Coward
Thank you for all your help on the Noel Coward article. Your excellent comments have helped us improve greatly! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I add my warmest thanks, too, and am at your service if I can repay the kindness with any articles. Tim riley (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

four color theorem
I've made changes to the article. If your patience hasn't run out, I'd appreciate if you took another look. --C S (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Pat Condell review
Could I get some further feedback and clarification regarding the Pat Condell peer review. I am very greatful for your assistance in the improvement of this article.--A pinhead (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I am still waiting.--A pinhead (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Thanks so much for reviewing this article! Bd2412 and I have made a lot of changes based on the suggestions you have made, as detailed at the peer review page. I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts on the changes. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

GNP&BR
Feel free to give it a copy edit. After spending several months writing it its hard to see it in a fresh light a spot those minor problems.--DavidCane (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Chotiner
I've now answered all your points on the Murray Chotiner FAC. The only things I have not adopted are the title for the final section (Death and legacy); I am open to a better title there if you have one. I also reproduced the capitalized campaign slogan Chotiner wrote for Knowland as per the original quote from the Morris book. I am afraid I know the sources on Chotiner now so well that I can tell which newspaper articles the authors read by which errors they made ... --Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Is this OK?
Short answer for File:Endurance trapped in pack ice.jpg: most probably, yes.

Long answer: it would have been definitely okay if the book was published first in New York, then a year later in London; but noooooo..., there are no records of which was first, and the rule of the shorter term might not be applicable to UK. Honestly, I think it is okay, but there might be an interpretation of copyright laws I might be missing (I am not a lawyer). This is a picture, taken by an Australian, that was first published at the same time (practically) in the United States and United Kingdom. I am not certain if three copyright templates have to be considered. It is definitely PD in US and Australia. The problem is UK's 70 year pma for known works. Since Hurley passed away in 1962, this means the photo would be in UK public domain only from 2032 (provided the rule of the shorter term is not applied). In any case, if someone objects and he is backed by others (with good reason), this image can still be moved to Wikipedia.

Hope I cleared things up. By the way, can you check if the photographer for File:The aurora.jpg is uncredited for in any of Shackleton's works? Jappalang (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and a favor?
Thanks so much for your support for Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky during the FA process so far. If you have the time, could you do me a favor, though, and look at the article once more. I've added some material in the sections from "Mature composer" through "Turmoil in life and music" that I initially thought enhanced the article but am now wondering whether now I am bordering on having too much material and should remove it. I'd really appreciate your opinion on this. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the congratulations over the promotion. The need seems no less urgent but please do not worry about it—I realize you are extremely busy. Jonyungk (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer review, Aurora's drift
I would be glad to look at it, perhaps even today. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 10:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Me too, although I'm traveling, driving a car by day, and staying who knows where at night. My life should settle down to a normal routine by the end of the week. Finetooth (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Need your opinion
Hello Brian. I need your opinion about something. I have submitted Martin Bucer to FAC and a reviewer mentioned that a copy-edit is needed because there are supposedly lots of malformed sentences (might be true considering my English skills are not that great). However, I asked someone else to take a look and he said that it was perfectly fine. Probably the answer is somewhere in between crap and excellent, but could you take a look and give me your honest opinion? Now, if you do say it is closer to crap, you probably know what is my next question... :) --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I would appreciate it and please take your time. I will be on the road for the next few days with intermittent internet access anyway. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Brian. Many thanks for ce. I just wanted to mention that the first quote was an attempt to paraphrase a Bucer quote; I replaced it with the full quote instead. The second is a paraphrase, but I put it in another way in any case. The last sentence is definitely a paraphrase, completely unlike the diction and syntax of the sources. I'll go over the text again. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Rach 1
I replied in the talk page, as long as I am the one that knows where the information comes from. Please keep copyediting, your work is valuable! OboeCrack (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Three small problems
Hi Brian. I took another look at Aurora's drift and posted a few short replies to the PR page. Everything looks good except that the links to Gutenberg return an error message, one citation number sequence is still reversed, and perhaps the "three or four feet" should stay as a companion to the approximate metre. Finetooth (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Brit opinion needed
Brian, You are the most prominent Brit I know among those who are highly regarded at FAC. At Featured article candidates/Fountain of Time, there is debate about the Queen's English that has spilled over to User_talk:Chzz. Would you care to comment as you feel is appropriate. Also, if you are interested the FAC is likely WP's best peace memorial and in the name of peace it could use a copyedit. How about it? In the name of peace:-?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * FACs are a funny thing. Sometimes they are open a month and other times less than a week.  Help is always welcome if it is still open.  Keep up the good work with other ventures.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you would still like to comment on the article when your schedule clears up the discussion has moved to WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Fountain of Time‎.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Robert Falcon Scott
Would you review this please? I haven't even read the whole article (and hardly own the formatting of the summary in question), so have no idea what POV developed since it was featured. Ottre 19:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Misc.
I will keep my eye on Scott - might make some comments there later too. Glad to help out.

My best guess is that "Die Saranzenin" is a variant spelling of "Die Sarazenin", or possibly "Die Sarazenen". The first would be "The Saracen Woman" (can one say "the Saraceness"?) and seems most likely to me. The second would be "The Saracenes" (plural). There is a five act German tragedy called Die Sarazenin by Erich Janke. The German Wikipedia does not seem to have article on this play or its author.

I will weigh in on Aurora's Drift whenever it reaches FAC. I have been a bit taken aback by the planned closure of the Joseph Priestley House. Sigh, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be unclear, but since it is indeed Die Sarazenin, that "-in" ending means it is the female singular form of Saracen, so I would translate it as The Saracen Woman. If it were Die Sarazenen, then an "-en" ending would make it plural (The Saracens).


 * The Priestley House is one of six historic sites in Pennsylvania slated for closure due to planned budget cuts. The house may get help from the American Chemical Society or others, not so sure about the other sites' chances. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me try one more time to appeal for constructive suggestions. After that, other steps may be needed. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have left a warning, will carefully reread the talk page to see if I missed any constructive comments per the reply Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies
over what seems to have happened over Symphony No. 1 (Rachmaninoff). I just read all the notes this morning. I cannot contribute any more to that article nor can rewrite any more than I already had before asking for your help and had already told User:OboeCrack this. If you are not comfortable working on the article either, I understand and thank you for the time you put into the article up to this point. Jonyungk (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have received your message and understand. Hopefully, we can work together on another project in the future. I am truly very sorry things turned out the way they did. Jonyungk (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Lydia Foy
Many thanks for your comments in peer review - exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  14:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations again
Congratulations on today's main page appearance. Three main page featured articles in four months must be something of a record! --DavidCane (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Hussey
Thanks, it's a bigger task than I anticipated. He had quite a full life, a shame he never became a talented cricketer as well! SGGH ping! 21:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The image was taken from the "list of..." article for the expedition, so the issue extends to that article as well. I will just replace the existing one with the crop, so it covers all articles. SGGH ping! 10:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Though that image is very small... SGGH ping! 10:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Fountain of Time
Thanks for your efforts. I will be watching.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I like what you have done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments welcome on my latest editorial efforts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Le Cid (opera)
Hey, I hate to be a pain, but if I wasn't too much trouble back when we were doing Agrippina, would you be interested in collaborating again on Le Cid (opera)? I have source material (in French, alas, which I cannot read, or at least not well) and with the source material comes far too many illustrations for an article of that size, so I'd like to expand it. =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Agrippina
Which is pretty much why my strop was almighty: I find it annoying that the system was laid out in such a way that the only way to fix problems with it was to complain. As for Le Cid - Fair enough =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Pleae let me know whether you could help or suggest someone
An article I wrote on the choral symphony—not the Beethoven Ninth by itself, but symphonies with choral parts in general—just passed GA review. However, the reviewer, hamiltonstone, recommended a good copyediting. I'm sure you're probably pretty busy but wanted to ask because I respect your talents in this regard, especially after what you did for Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Would you be able to look at the article anytime in the next couple of months or so, or, if you are not so inclined, could you recommend someone who could do so? Either way, please let me know. (I had left this message above in the "Apologies" area a few days ago but did not know whether you saw it since I received no reply.) Thanks for your consideration; I look forward to your reply. Jonyungk (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations
I see that SY Aurora's drift got its well-deserved star today. Please accept my congratulations. Finetooth (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and mine too! Well done and keep up the FA work! Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey! Wow! Congratulations!  Nancy Heise    talk  23:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism
Brian, thanks for going through the article and cleaning up. Were you addressing Sandy's comments? I thought I got everything but evidently her eyes are much more keen than mine.  Nancy Heise    talk  23:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Adelaide Rams peer review
Thank you for your review, I have hopefully addressed your concerns, and I would appreciate it if you would finish your review. Thank you, and take your time, I'm in no rush.   The Windler      talk   12:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you it would be greatly appreciated, I'm in no rush, I would like the article to become FA, but it doesn't mind me if it is in a month or a decade. Thanks,   The Windler      talk   22:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you again, do you believe that it has the potential to become a FA now? Or does it have a bit of work in additional sources and/or more content?    The Windler      talk   03:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Or do you recommend continuing a "general review".    The Windler      talk   03:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the effort, you deserve the star, I have also copied this discussion to my talk page, as I prefer to have discussions in one place.    The Windler      talk   10:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I know you have finished the review, but would it be too much to ask to respond to my last comment on the Peer review page. If you need anything clarified, just give me a note.    The Windler      talk   09:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)