User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 26

Elgar and Mascagni
I have said on the peer review page, but should like to repeat here, how grateful I am for the huge and invaluable input you have given me on the Elgar article. I shall be delighted to repay a little of the debt when you put Mascagni up for review, though I am wholly confident that I shall have had the better of that exchange. Let me know if there's any Mascagni-related digging I can do in the archives. (En passant – Monteverdi, then Mahler, then Mascagni. Plainly an alphabetical obsession. Who next – Mantovani?) – Tim riley (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe Meyerbeer Brianboulton (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that last note about the list of "notable" works. Watch this space to see how much moral fibre I can summon up. Many thanks for your moral support, which will be invaluable. (Apropos Meyerbeer, there is an Ira Gershwin lyric that rhymes him with "buy a beer".) - Tim riley (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good old Ira. I've no real intention of doing Meyerbeer, I just wanted to say "maybe Meyerbeer". I should grow up, really. Brianboulton (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As all composers beginning with M are now officially part of the Boulton empire, I give you notice that I propose to get André Messager from start class to something more respectable. No peer review will be sought but the old chap deserves something a bit ritzier than start class. I'll get him up to B if I can. As to your researches into Mascagni, if I can dig in any archives (Observer, Times, Guardian, Musical Times) you have but to say "Si può?" (or is that Pag rather than Cav?). - Tim riley (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely Pag. Your offer of help re Mascagni noted with thanks. I won't be working on this until the autumn, as apart from some existing projects I have agreed to help upgrade Tosca. I regret to say I'd never heard of Messager - in his photo he looks like Adrian Boult's illegitimate grandfather. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Walks question
Excuse me Brian. Can you reply on the question you asked on Jesus walks' PR? I have no idea on what you mean. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied. Also, once your done with the bashing, can you actually review Jesus Walks? Not trying to be rude, but it just feels like you're kind-of putting me down for requesting a PR and asking for comments to get Jesus Walks to GA or (hopefully) FA status even though I have made only 9 edits in the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Problematic PRs
Thanks for the heads up - I will take a look at them and make some mostly boilerplate comments. I have not yet had the pleasure of listening to the Eighth, was going tosee if I could get it at a local library before buying it. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Days of our Lives
Sorry to get back to you so late on this article. I have been extremely busy in the past month! I believe I fixed most of what you stated, and I still wish to get the article up to featured status. Please leave some more comments if necessary. Sami50421 (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A thought
Would you have an interest in doing Tosca either instead of or in preparation for Nixon in China (opera). The article is crappy, it deserves better, references should be easier to get, and we can still do Nixon in China later on? If you're not interested, I'll put it aside.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly I'd like to do Tosca, an opera I know fairly well (much easier on the ear than N in C), and I don't mind putting the latter on hold for a bit longer, though I believe it should be done. Presumably your first priority is still the main Nixon article, with Tosca as a project for July? That would suit me. How would you envisage the division of labour? Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You would do the sections that require a knowledge of music that require more than nodding along, I would be more likely to do the nonmusical parts. Just as a starting point.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I will start accumulating resources. I think I have a operagoers guide to Tosca somewhere around the place, but it may take some digging, but I expect Amazon to see some business from me.  By the way, as I read up on Nixon, I'm also trying to squeeze in Ernest Augustus I of Hanover, an article I've been playing with for years.  Problem is sourcing for any serious discussion of his career ... I don't expect it to interfere with Tosca, though.  I also used to have a copy of La Tosca in translation, but will again have to dig for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have numerous Tosca-rlated resources which I will try to assess this weekend, but I'm a bit busy with family matters at the moment - and trying to avoid USA v England. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm working, and have the TV on to the World Cup but am not really "watching" it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation bias
Have the issues you raised about sourcing in this article been adequately addressed? Thanks in advance, MartinPoulter (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Well deserved. Congratulations to both of you. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Paolo Nutini discography
heya, thank you for reviewing the above article! :) i have addressed your issues. were there any other things you think could be improved on? Mister sparky (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Achtung Baby FAC
Hey, just wanted to let you know I believe I've addressed all the issues you brought up with the FAC nomination thus far (some questions for you notwithstanding). If you could please review the changes I've made and let me know what you think, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Were there any other outstanding issues with the article that would be reason for you to hold back support of a promotion to FA? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * When I am only looking at sourcing issues, I neither oppose nor support candidates. On a few occasions I am able to extend to a full review, or I may have seen the article at peer review; in those circumstances I may declare, otherwise I stay neutral. Brianboulton (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure if you were going to do a more thorough review at some point, but as you pointed out, you're the resident sourcing expert. Thanks for your help, by the way. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Tosca
When do you want to start? I'm presently working on Hoover Dam but it was in pretty decent shape when I started it and it won't take me long to finish it up. 75th anniversary of dedication coming up end of September. I've got a few books on Tosca and Puccini. Nixon will wait until I have a few articles to keep FAC busy.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to decide what to do with The Temple at Thatch, a slender offering that is being ignored at peer review by the literati despite my obsequious pleadings. I'm not planning to start any of my other projects immediately, so let's do Tosca next. "Thatch" can probably look after itself (though you may like to review it - it won't take long). As to Tosca, unless you have objections I think we should broadly follow a structure which I have employed on each of my opera FAs: Historical context → Creation → Roles → Plot synopsis → Reception and performance history → Music (analysis) – followed by list of musical numbers, recording history etc. If you are braodly agreeable to this, we can decide "who does what"? I am fully ameanble to any suggestion or request. Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was looking at the opera FA's, then saw most were written by you. I think I would be weakest at the music (analysis) section and I might not have the refs for the recording history.  I'd tend to prefer the Historical context/Creation/synopsis and perhaps reception as well, but I'm open to all ideas.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll look at the PR, but it may take me a day or two, I've got dams on my mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Brian, just a note to say how glad I am that you'll be turning your magic pen to this opera. It's long overdue, and I'm sure you and Wehwalt will do a brilliant job. If you need any help translating Italian sources, just give a shout. I also have a copy of this book, if you need stuff from it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I also own a copy and just used it heavily in starting sandbox work on the historical section. But thank you for your kind offer.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for the encouragement, and we'll certainly call on help as necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Brian and Wehwalt. Thanks for putting this opera on your to do list. Here is an excellent resource for a recording history of the opera: The Metropolitan Opera guide to recorded opera By Paul Gruber, Metropolitan Opera Guild; Tosca begins on page 411. Unfortunately not all of the pages are available on google books.4meter4 (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What are your thoughts, Brian, on moving up the synopsis/roles as was discussed on talk page? The good thing is, that way when I refer to arias and characters in the composition section, people will know what I am talking about (though I suspect many of our readers are people who know all about Tosca and want to see what WP has to say about it).  However, you've been through a couple of article builds/FAC with opera articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be a little uncomfortable changing a format for which I argued (in the face of some opposition) over a series of opera FACs, though I wouldn't rule it out. However, I think we should first concentrate on getting all the relevant sections into the article, in something like their final form. Then we can decide if a different order from the norm best suits this particular case. In any case, the article may look pretty different from what it does now, when it reaches its finished state. Brianboulton (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you think I should work on now? I'm hesitant to start work on the lede until you have your musical analysis in place.  With Tosca wildly popular over the last 110 years, there is no particular rediscovery to write about, and picking out notable performances is one of those indefinite tasks.  We also seem to have a couple of editors with decidedly individual view watching the renovation.  I'm going to start looking for images, I guess.  Pre-1923 performances and Roman sites, I guess.  I was in Rome a month ago, if I had known I was going to be doing this, I'd have gone there (I've been to all three sites in the past so saw no reason to revisit, though i did go to SantAndrea d'Quirinale, where Sardou places Act I) and taken pix.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hoxne
Hi Brian, Did you get my message re. the GLAM/BM/Hoxne challenge? I'm not sure where you are geographically, but would you be able to participate? Witty Lama 14:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Missed the message. I'm in the UK but I have rather too many WP plates spinning at the moment to be a reliable participant in this challenge. I wish you luck. Brianboulton (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Age of Discovery
Hello Brianboulton, just to inform you that all your objections have been addressed. Thank you once more for the help. I've started working on this article addressing strong Portuguese POV views combined with PC extreme views also, trying to reach a balanced overview. Still, my main concern now is on the English reading "funny". As new objections appear, and having noticed your collaboration on exploration articles, would be grateful for any collaboration (also on rewording any phrases you feel need) P.S, maybe with your expertise you could give a boost on article "Major explorations after the Age of Discovery". Thank you --Uxbona (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the compliments. I have responded to sources issues on the FAC page. My WP time is a bit overstretched at the moment. As well as handling the sources reviews at FAC I am trying to maintain my share of peer reviewing, and trying to continue with some content building. I haven't done an exploration article for a while - mostly I work on music and opera, but I'll look out for anything you do in the exploration line and try and help if I can. Brianboulton (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Re. TFA requests
You're very welcome for my supporting both your recent TFA requests (Mahler and Terra Nova) and thanks very much for the encouragement on continuing to edit. I had become discouraged and somewhat burnt out, but I am currently expanding the article on the English Liszt pupil Walter Bache and hope to eventually have in shape for PR. The work is slow but going well. It would be tempting to try to pull the article on Franz Liszt together for his bicentennial next year but it seems in almost as bad a shape, and nearly as hotly contested, as Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky once was. Your thoughts? Jonyungk (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It would indeed be a big loss to the WP music community if you were to withdraw from editing and reviewing, so I hope your break has refreshed and reinvigorated you. Perhaps you need a change from the Russians, in which case Liszt would be a good, if challenging, choice. I may even be able to help; I collected material on Liszt last year when I was "doing" Smetana. I have Derek Watson's 1989 biography and other useful sources. Let me know what you decide to do. My next music article will be Tosca, which I am working on with Wehwalt, but my content-building time is rather limited at present because I have taken on extra reviewing duties at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right&mdash;I do need a break from the Russians. (It was a thwarted attempt to expand Mily Balakirev that caused the burn-out.) I'll definitely think about Liszt and let you know whether I decide to tackle it, though I'm apprehensive about editing a page that is as volatile as that one can be. Meanwhile, there is still Bache, on which I'll continue as long as there is some momentum going. Jonyungk (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, I just listed Walter Bache at PR. I'd really appreciate your input, if you have time. Thanks! Jonyungk (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I will get to it, though my PR reviewing, like my content-building, is suffering on account of my FAC workload, so it may be a few days. Brianboulton (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Thanks again. And while I'm at it, Terra Nova looks really great on the Main Page. Congratulations! Jonyungk (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C.
Hi Brian. Just to let you know I feel like I have now sorted out all of the references in this article, as you suggested. I don't think this article will get promoted now, because a few people have (prematurely, in my opinion) opposed, but I'd welcome any thoughts you have on the rest of the article. Many thanks, and best wishes. Tom Tomlock01 (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Much as I would like to comment further, at the moment I am looking exclusively at sources issues at FAC, and don't have the time for regular reviewing. I guess this will be a difficult article to get through, because of the variety of strongly held opinions about this club, but it's worth persevering. I will check out the references again and let you know if anything else needs attention in that quarter. Brianboulton (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks Brian. Tomlock01 (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Brian, do the sources on this article look OK to you now? Tomlock01 (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just had another look. I'd say they are fine except for one tiny point: the odd page range still has a hyphen rather than a dash. I honestly can't see anything that needs fixing. Remember, I haven't checked all the sources out, nor have verified that each citation supports the statement to which it is attached. I am saying, however, that the sources you have chosen to use appear to be reliable in accordance with FAC requirements. Brianboulton (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thanks Brian, I'll change the hyphens. Tom Tomlock01 (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008/archive2
I have responded to all your concerns at the above FAC. Thank you for taking the time to look over the article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Vissi d'arte
I don't think it's sung to Scarpia as you state, though my libretto is short on stage directions. Certainly, she appeals to God through much of the second half of the aria. I'm not certain, my thoughts are coloured by always seeing Scarpia "eat dinner" or stand by patiently or otherwise engage himself in the lowered lights as the spotlights focus on Floria.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it depends on your reading of the libtetto, and also on how the scene is staged. In my (English) libretto the aria appears to be part of Tosca's colloquy with Scarpia, and in a videotape of the opera I have just watched, is presented as such. Burton Fisher, however, equates the aria to "a Job-like prayer, questioning God for punishing a virtuous woman" – in other words the aria is addressed to God rather than to Scarpia. A bit of both, probably, but I think the Fisher analogy is persuasive, and have amended the synopsis accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've made a few minor changes, mostly my usual quibbling, in your synopsis. A couple of things I was wondering if we could squeeze in.  I think this article would look odd without Kernan's description of the opera as a "shabby little shocker", it is just too famous.  Perhaps we could squeeze it in through mentioning his other well known comment, that after Tosca's suicide, the orchestra screams the first thing that comes into its head, since we already have some discussion of E lucevan ending the opera.  Second, some discussion of whether Cavaradossi knows that Tosca's just fooling herself about the mockness of the execution might be in order in the section you are writing.  Nicassio has a discussion on that point.  (my view:  of course he knows!  "Don't worry, I shall fall at once, and quite naturally").--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted: the article lacks any critical reception summary. I will address this in the section I am preparing; not only are there Kernan's comments, but others: Benjamin Britten was dismissive (of pretty well the whole Puccini ouevre), and there are some who hail Tosca's dramatic force but condemn its music (I've lost a pertinent quote to this effect but I'll find it). Old Ernest Newman was quite direct in his criticisms of the "lame" way in which Puccini and his librettists handle some crucial aspects of Sardou's plot. I don't have the Nicassio text, but you can add a line on the point above. On thing: I am going to have to spend some time today on my FAC source review duties, which I have been neglecting of late, so I may not begin the Tosca work until this evening. I will post as soon as possible. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no hurry. I'm home and more or less unoccupied until the 8th.  After that, I will be in and out for about a month, but I will have my computer with me.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Cyrus Cylinder
Thanks for your comments at Featured article candidates/Cyrus Cylinder/archive1. I've now addressed all of the issues you raised - I'd be grateful for feedback. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So, er, do you support the nomination? It would be nice to know. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * When I am only looking at sourcing issues, I neither oppose nor support candidates. On a few occasions I am able to extend to a full review, or I may have seen the article at peer review; in those circumstances I may declare, otherwise I stay neutral. I am following the practice set by Ealdgyth before me. I hope in due course to return to detailed reviewing. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the explanation and the review! -- ChrisO (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you very much. It's always nice to hear from you. Brianboulton (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Terra Nova Expedition
I suspected, when I saw today's front page, that this would be a Boulton production, and lo... And very fine it is. - Tim riley (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This was an early effort - my first GA and my second featured article, in the dawn of my polar phase before I was seduced by the sound of music. I would love to do another south pole article some day; for the moment I am helping out with Tosca. I've also got a little sideline going with early Evelyn Waugh, see The Temple at Thatch, which I may nominate soon. Glad to see Elgar made it at GA. Brianboulton (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Always nice to see your work on the Main Page, congratulations! Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ping
Agree. Most images added by kibbitzers btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll leave a note on the talkpage and do some pruning Brianboulton (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice job on the musical analysis, I can probably add some to it using the Budden book. We also seem to duplicate some information regarding the bells and so forth between the composition section and the intro to the analysis section, we should probably reconcile that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added some to Act I, will await your reaction. Budden is very useful in that department.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your additions look excellent. We just have to be a little careful that we don't overdo the detail and overblow the article. I got Budden's book today from ILL and was going to beef up the music section with it, but please feel free to continue. On the matter of duplications, there may well be overlaps which we can sort out during the final polishing stage before PR. I shall begin work soon on the recording history, but I have a bit of a backlog on my reviewing work at FAC and PR (I hope also to nominate The Temple at Thatch, if I can find time to write a nom statement). I have trimmed the Tosca images - better, I think. Some of the licencing needs looking at, though. Brianboulton (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll let you take first shot at adding stuff from Budden. I'm still awaiting one more source.  I'll look at the licencing.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've written a lede which is incomplete for our purposes, but not obviously so for the casual reader as we continue to renovate the article. I would suggest that you write a paragraph about the music.  Three paragraphs should do unless you see a need for a fourth.  I will look for material on any other editions; if there isn't any (I really doubt there can be much) I would suggest that we fold "editions" into "early performances".--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I like three lead para wherever possible. I will work on this but it may take a day or so. I'm reading Hoover Dam now. Brianboulton (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

His Band and the Street Choir
Hi. Sorry I hadn't addressed your issues earlier, but I've been really busy. I've fixed a lot of your comments but I'm not sure about some and have left a reply for each of those; would you be able to reply to these if possible? Many thanks  Kitchen Roll   (Exchange words)  20:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I reviewed sourc es at the recent FAC, and as far as I can see there are no sources issues outstanding. I'm not clear what are you drawing to my attention here; can you amplify? Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You left some comments at talk:His Band and the Street Choir (unless I'm mistaken); I am unsure about some and have left a reply next to them. Would you be able to reply to my comments? Thanks  Kitchen Roll   (Exchange words)  21:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, on the talkpage - I had forgotten about that, I will take a look shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks  Kitchen Roll   (Exchange words)  16:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Wolf 359
A little more than a month ago you peer reviewed the article Wolf 359. You seemed concerned with the accessibility of the texts. I'm currently review the article for GA, and am interested to know if you think the improvements have some alleviated the problem. I'm concerned that the prose may still be a little technical, but it is hard for me to judge. Thanks in advance.TimothyRias (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I've read it again. I can't pretend I understood all of it, but with an effort I could follow most of it. With articles like this you have to beware of too much dumbing down, or the whole thing becomes pointless. Although there are probably areas that could be expressed more plainly, it is hard to pinpoint them. I would probably pass the prose for GA, since the parts I did understand were perfectly well phrased. Brianboulton (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again
Thanks again for looking over Walter Bache&mdash;as usual, I'm looking forward to your comments. I am becoming concerned about possibly giving too much information on the Bache annual concerts in an article that is supposed to be a biography on Bache himself, so please let me know whether you find this to be true. Jonyungk (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)