User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 28

Manchester United F.C.
Hi Brian, sorry to bother you again. Following on from the discussion about refs on the above article, if you get a chance could you take a look and see if all the refs are now acceptable, and add any comments, if any, you'd make at FAC on either mine or your talk page? Best, Tom (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Walter Bache at FAC
Thanks for the encouragement and comments on this article, which I have nominated to FAC. Jonyungk (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I will pick it up soon. Meanwhile, watch the same space for the arrival of Tosca. Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Your request for Tosca image uploads
See Talk:Tosca. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Image
What about keeping that image of Act III to complete the set, but putting it in the Musical Analysis Act III section (I agree it not a wonderful pic, C. is plainly falling even though the officer has his sword raised still and there is no sign of the soldiers having fired (smokeless powder is a post-US Civil War development). And Tosca should not really be looking away, she needs to be judging the naturalness of his fall ...--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm done by the way. I would restore the information on Tosca on DVD.  Video is almost as important as audio, it seems, these days.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have put the execution scene back, at the end of the Music section; despite the absurdities that you mention, I think it willprobably pass without comment. I've added a couple of sentences on DVDs, though it remains my view that the recordings should mostly be discussed in the discography article. Are we ready to go FAC? A big debt is owed to Voceditenore for his help with images, and we must be sure to mention this in the nom statement. Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we are ready. Sooner the better.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's OK with you I'll do it tomorrow. I think it will go well. Brianboulton (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think so. Yes, do it when you get a chance.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm watching.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done: add something to the nom statement if you wish Brianboulton (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Already done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Tosca YouTube links - Copyvio?
I'd remove the ext link to the Callas/Gobbi Tosca video. It's been released commerically (I have it) and the YouTube clips are probably a copyright violation. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed. I didn't put the link there, and honestly hadn't noticed it until now. Brianboulton (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a hold-over from the "olden days". I'd forgotten all about it until today when I was looking for the link to the libretto. By the way, thank you for the compliment above, although adding images is mighty easy compared to your and Wehwalt's magnum opus. Good luck with the FAC! By the way, I'm a "she" despite my Wikipedia nom de plume. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will confess I don't really concentrate on the external links, and am usually content to let people have whatever they want, as long as it is not obviously a problem or wildly POV. Thanks for pointing out the problem.  The FAC is now open, your comments would be very welcome, as would those of the others who have participated in building this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was looking at the La Tosca article which is really quite good now. Perhaps we should lend a hand there.  I think they could get it to FA standards quite easily.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I wrote La Tosca because Tosca had listed it as the "main article" for the play, and it looked like this! Not a lot of help to the reader. I'm going to do the "critical reception" in the next couple of days. Feel free to contribute to it if you want, but please can it not be put up for an FA in the near future. I will be travelling almost continually between July 18th and mid-September and really would rather not have all the aggro that goes with FAC, nor do I want my images completely decimated. It's a useful article to readers and (I hope) an interesting read. That's all I care about when I write WP articles. I've never cared about getting an FA rating for my stuff. Voceditenore (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course we will respect that. I was hoping to repay you by helping out a bit on that article, but a nomination would be entirely your call.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

We have comments
I did about half. I would have done all, but several of them I felt were technical and that you should look at. Also, the commenter is making a valid point that for the novice, the first sections are not that comprehensible without knowledge of the plot. I have no objection to putting the synopsis first after the lede. However, I know this is not the way it is done for plays/operas/movies, and I imagine there are good reasons for that. Your thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made a few more adjustments in response to the reviewer's comments. As to the point about the order of sections, I think the problem is not that the synopsis is in the wrong place, but that the "Writing and adaptation" section has much more detail than is normal in such sections, and thereby introduces the reader to the some of the plot details prematurely. In my view this detail adds a great deal to the article's quality and comprehensiveness, and needs to be retained; the question is, is it in the right place? Does the reader need to know these things at this point? A possible solution: transfer some of the detail, particularly that in the second and fourth paragraphs of "Writing and adaptation", to the beginning of the "Editions and amendemnts" section, perhaps in a subsection of its own. The "Writing" section can still deal in more general terms with issues such as Puccini's arguments with the librettists, Sardou's veto of the "happ[ier] ending", Puccini's searches for authenticity, etc. The editions section already has some related information (re the Latin hymn"), so the transplant would be quite compatible. I believe this would work.  Brianboulton (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's hold off a bit. I don't think it will be necessary, and I think it would needlessly tear apart the section, which has already seen considerable deletion.  I think that inexperienced readers will probably head right for the synopsis no matter what we do (say someone being dragged to the opera wanting to know what will happen before they get there) and for readers with some knowledge of opera, it will be in a good place.  With both our efforts to tone down the big words, I think we have satisfactorily addressed the rest of his comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree no precipitate action, but if the issue persists and other reviewers raise it, then this is something we might consider. The matter wasn't raised at peer review, nor by any of the knowlegeable talkpage crowd. Brianboulton (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously you go with the flow if you have to at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

London premiere of Tosca
Funnily enough, yesterday's Guardian blast from the past at the bottom of the leader page is an unsigned review of the above, dated 13 July 1900. Ternina is described as "the famous German artist". Some bits about audience reaction and the singers might be worth a footnote. If you can't get hold of a copy (I suspect it won't be on their website), I could transcribe it, but that will have to wait till Saturday as I'm off to Buxton in 10 minutes. Best. --GuillaumeTell 12:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see it on their website, so that would be appreciated. Sure you don't have the Gold Cup on the seat next to you, under a blanket?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have yesterday's Guardian, saw the article and smiled at the serendipity. We already have comments about the London premiere from The Times and The Musical Times, and must be careful not to overweight the detail on this particular premiere, but I'll take another look. Thanks for the tip, anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think in doing my research, I also saw a review in the New York Times, but I saw nothing exceptional.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Brian, the Grauniad published a correction about the Abbé Prevost mess-up -. --GuillaumeTell 17:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I missed that. God bless 'em Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Publishers on Sweet Track FAC
Thanks for your sources check on Featured article candidates/Sweet Track/archive1. I think I've dealt with most of your issues but I'm really confused by your comment re: "Refs 25 and 31: Are "Thomas Telford Ltd" and "Telford Press" the same publisher" details are on the review page of what different sources say - but if you could help me out of my confusion that would be great.&mdash; Rod talk 21:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Millennium Park FAC
The Millennium Park FAC is getting a bit long in the tooth. If you have any opininos they would be welcome now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yorkshire captaincy crisis of 1927
Having been away for a week or two, I've only just been able to look at the article again after your review. Thanks for the comments. I've tried to improve it somewhat (I haven't changed the name yet, although I intend to. I'm also hoping to sort out the Sutcliffe image as I think I know where it is from). I'd appreciate a quick look to see if I'm on the right lines or if I should simply start again! Thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is looking pretty good to me, but the Sutcliffe image licensing is all wrong; how can we claim "life of author plus 70 years" when we don't know who the photographer is? My guess is that this image was published, probably after 1923 and as such is not in the public domain. I will try to go through the prose in the next day or so, though I am rather overstretched at present, so no promises. Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything would be appreciated. As you saw (and thanks for the fix in the first line!) I've renamed the article. I've also changed the image of Sutcliffe to a fairly solid one from Australia. The photo that was there is from 1924-25 I think, and is probably Australian. However, I can't find it anywhere, so you are right that it should go for now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ping
I've responded, on the Palmieri thing anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I had already responded on Palmieri; see my edit timed 12.49 today. I can't see your responses. Brianboulton (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant, on my talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I favour using the section arrangement in your sandbox. I would return the fourth paragraph of background to the Adaptation section, otherwise that section doesn't start right in my view.   I think that's the only thing left unresolved.  By the way, I only look in your sandboxes when you ask me to (as now) or when you are about to post a FAC review or a peer review.
 * Done as you suggest. Perhaps you would note this, for Johnbod's benefit, on the FAC page. Painful, but probably necessary (and not too deviant from the format of the other opera articles). I'm not really paranoid about my sandboxes, anyone is welcome to take a peep. (PS I'm having some connection problems this evening and may respond irregularly.) Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am presently at home and have little planned this weekend. I won't be on constantly but I'll be looking in as I start work on Statue of Liberty.  I'll leave a note.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he also wanted an explanation of "harmonic oscillations" and also "classic form opera".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Cantata
Are we going to link cantata or not? Johnbod had requested it. I put it in. You took it out as unnecessary. I would suggest we either put it in or explain to him why it should not be linked. I'm going through his remaining comments right now. Hope the internet connection's going well.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, there is the question of Johnbod's request that we provide the original Italian for several quotes. It is my view that a RS translation is sufficient, though I have no objection to "busting my balls" as we have that handy.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Cantata was linked at first mention - I don't remember ever taking it out as "unnecessary". As a result of our switch of the Adaptation section, the first mention became second mention. I have now restored the link to the present first mention of the term. I'll have to look again at what Johnbod was saying about translations. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Here it is. I'm starting to miss the quiet acceptance of Thatch.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, at that time that was the second mention of the term; the link was on the first mention, in the Adaptation section, which we then moved...etc etc Can we stop talking about this, it's making my head spin. Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is rapidly becoming confusing. Worse than the Tour de France.  Translations?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there someone you can ask for a source check? There is still some chance this can pass this weekend.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We've had the sources check - just before Johnbod's comments. Brianboulton (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment from outside: a few weeks ago I would have recommended to avoid a link to cantata, but after great improvement there it is good that it is linked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

While England slept ...
It passed! A little last minute rush from some Sandy comments on italicisation. A little rougher than I expected, but I think we've gained valuable experience for Nixon with chopsticks next year. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised; five days is very quick - even Thatch took seven. A lot of attention, most of it useful, was crammed into those five days. As you say, it's been a good learning experience, but I somehow doubt that your kibbitzers will be out in so much force for Nixon in China.


 * A good collaboarive effort, I think, and I hope you found it so. You're off to the Statue of Liberty, I'm undecided. I've done some groundwork for Monteverdi's L'Orfeo, but I think I need a short rest from opera, so I may sort out Fridtjof Nansen first. Brianboulton (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hah! I love Nixon in China. Saw it at the ENO in 2000 with Peter Sellars bopping around to various friends in the audience before it started saying "Hey guys, there's gonna be major boo-ing tonight, so like, be prepared." Best, "The Kibbizter" aka Voceditenore (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good article, high profile explorer. I've promised to work with one of our rising young editors, User:White Shadows, who I hope to get into writing FAs by dropping us into the deep end with Robert E. Lee, which is rather like you doing Cromwell, there is an immense amount of material.  I might do one more between Liberty and that, since I want to view the Lee archives at Washington and Lee University in Lexington (about 200 miles from here) and I will be going to that area for a vacation with my brother's family in late August.  Possibly catch up on one of the projects on my list.  Nixon will be a little at a time here, a little at a time there, I will be going to the Nixon Library again in mid-October.  They are also assisting me right now with Whitlam images after considerable discussion (turns out he was in their listings under Edward G. Whitlam, which is his name).--Wehwalt (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the delegates are getting pragmatic in when to promote and not using hard and fast rules about the number of days. An article from a regular contributor which attracts the required support will receive promotion consideration a bit faster than it used to.  The dam article took six days, this took five.  Not counting on Ernest taking four ...--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've put a draft TFA blurb for Tosca in my blurb box here I'm thinking we could put it in as a nonspecific date or await the 110th anniversary of the London premiere on 4 February.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you mean the Met premiere - we've just had the 110th anniversary of the London premiere. Even so, I don't think that's a particularly significant date, and I'd make the request nonspecific. I am hoping to claim 12 September as the centenary of the premiere of Mahler's Eighth, but that's way off yet; if Raul is minded he'll have picked Tosca well before then. Brianboulton (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My next date claim is 30 September, 75th anniversary of the dedication of Hoover Dam. Yes, I did mean the New York Met, ahem, the Met.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

PING
Brian, I'm emailing you about an urgent matter. Tony  (talk)  10:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, sorry, seems to be fixed now, and you're probably in the middle of a busy day. Second email sent. Tony   (talk)  12:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Tony, I got your emails. I'll be glad to do the Signpost thing next week. Just tell me where to post and what the deadline is. Can you also leave me any links I might need? Brianboulton (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's good news, Brian. Thanks! This week, six days not seven, because we've been asked to adhere to the proper deadline of Monday 03:00 UTC (rather than the chronically two-day-late publications). So the list will be assembled in spurts from Monday 19 to Saturday 24 through the week here. Sunday promotions will be included in the following window, not this one. We'll try to have the list just about complete by early Saturday, but will have to add any further promotions that occur on Saturday itself. I think we might end up after this week pushing it back another day (Saturday to Friday), to give us and the guest judges enough flexibility. Previous examples of Choice of the week for FA, FL and FP are accessible through the link, bottom left. Tony   (talk)  08:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Tosca
Thanks for letting me know Tosca passed FAC. I had read through the article and was, as usual, impressed with your work. Would have commented as such on FAC had I known earlier. Jonyungk (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Tosca was promoted very quickly; I imagined it would be on the page another week. Now we await the good news on Bache. Brianboulton (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Source reviews
Hi, I had started some source reviews at FAC, but yesterday had confirmed that I have a significant vision loss, which will require surgery. Until it's fixed, I can't do any close screen work, so I'll have to stop the source reviews. Probably explains the reason I couldn't see the lost spaces. Just thought I'd let you know in case you wonder why I've stopped. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Fight for this Love peer review,
First of all thank you for doing this. One thing that always surprises me is prose issues but when reading the article I immediately understood what you meant. So I've been through and virtually made all of the changes you've suggested. The only thing I left was the promotion section because in comparison to 4 Minutes (an FA) by Madonna, the section is not that much longer than the one for Madonna's single. This is especially true considering that this is Cole's debut release and there level of promotion was extensive. It cannot be called Live Performances like the Madonna article because it was not always performed live. If you get chance it would be good if you could take a second look? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Subscription to Jstor
I notice that in a recent FA review you suggested that links to articles on Jstor should flag that a subscription is required. Is this recommended practice? For citations to publications in scientific journals I try to give the doi – but unfortunately for the vast majority of journals a subscription is required to read any more than the abstract. The general practice on Wikipedia seems to be not to give warnings in these cases. Is providing a doi really any different from providing a link to an article on Jstor? For some scientific articles a warning would be required for almost every reference. Where possible I provide links to open access journals but in most cases the "best" source is in a journal that requires a subscription. Fortunately there is a movement towards open access publishing - encouraged by the Welcome Trust and NIH. Aa77zz (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Generally what I do is only use a doi link, and not add the JSTOR url to my FACs. But if I do have a link to an article on JSTOR (usually because it's not got a doi), I do include the "format=fee required" field just to make sure everyone is clear that it's not free. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Source reviews...
I'm home and mostly back up to speed, but looks like folks have really picked up the ball at FAC, so I'm hesitant to step up and do reviews... lest they drop things back on my lap again (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome back; I hope your trip was everything you hoped it would be, especially the UK bit. As to source reviewing, at first it was just me, then more recently a few others have stepped up (though, sadly per above, one of these has had to drop out). I don't see why you should be expected to pick up all the reins again, and would much rather you celebrated your return with a nice juicy bishop. On the other hand, your experience in the source review area is unmatched, and I badly need to be doing more work at peer review. Would it be possible for you to share the source reviewing work with me (and the odd other)? I'll try and do at least half, and promise I won't just give up and leave it all to you. Let me know if you think that would work. Brianboulton (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I'll do the nonfilm/nonmusic/nonmovie ones (grins). England was as wonderful as I hoped it'd be. I even visited a few places up your alleys... the Fram museum and a polar exploration museum. The pics from there are in my queue (I have about 4000 or so shots that might work on wikipedia, I expect about half to make the cut for Commons...) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Deal! And, as an opening gesture, could you help me answer the JSTOR query, above? Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Just when I thought the bias complaints couldn't get stranger...
I see this. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:.hack (video game series) FAC
Since you already commented on this FAC, would you be willing to do a more in-depth review? It doesn't appear that User:Jinnai will back down, but he has yet to provide any specific, actionable objections to the article other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Nevertheless, he's seems to have succeeded in scaring off any other reviewers, so perhaps I could ask you to help jump-start discussion? Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi: much as I would like to oblige, I am generally only doing sources reviews at FAC for the moment, except on articles where I have particular expertise (e.g. Walter Bache) or a special interest. I will do a sources review on this article, which will keep the FAC ball rolling, and I'll see if I can get a couple of games people to take some interest. As to Jinnai, I'd say his/her claims have been fully answered, and I'd expect his oppose to be ignored. Brianboulton (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/National Anthem of Russia/archive4
I made several changes to the article as you suggested (and found similar ones, like linking to the articles about certain publications). I also replied on why I use vcite in this article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Just for you...
Recently arrived at Commons... File:Gjoastuffeddog.jpg (I just had to take this one...), File:Fueltanklatham47flight.jpg, File:Framprow.jpg, File:Framnameplate.jpg, File:Andreespolarexpeditiontowel.jpg. That's pretty much it from the Polarmuseet - most of its exhibits were only tagged in Norwegian and I had no idea what was relevant. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, indeed. I was in Tromso a couple of years back, but missed the stuffed dog. I've been to the Fram museum, but stupidly neglected to take any pictures. I am currently working on the Fridtjof Nansen article expansion, and at least one of your Fram pictures will find a place there. Poor old Andree was a failed balloonist - it's one of the saddest of all the North Pole stories, probably worth an article expansion, too. I mainly do operas and stuff now, but I like to keep my hand in the snow and ice, a bit like you with bishops and horses. Brianboulton (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh. I'm still really concentrating on bishops, the horses are my "fun". I know that the cartulary is .. odd... but it sorta grew, and grew... and grew... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Stephens City FAC/Sources comments
Just wanted to let you know I have updated the "Sources comments" section you added. Some I have done, some I couldn't, one I was confused. All responses on the FAC. Will work with you on them. :) -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 02:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Royal National College for the Blind
Hi. I've been asked to submit the article Royal National College for the Blind for FAC by PaulLargo, who is currently away for personal reasons and therefore unable to do it himself. I notice the last review was concluded with a request to submit the article again, but to notify those who had contributed to the discussion to determine whether they had any major objections to it being put forward again. Since the last FAC I've done some minor work on expanding it and, along with another user, have added more images. I feel it's probably ready for submission again, but wanted to run it past those who reviewed it last time before completing the nomination. If there are no objections by Monday 26 July I'll assume everything is ok and submit the FAC and wait for comments. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've no objection to this going up again, and will leave comments after its nomination. Brianboulton (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ernest
Would you mind coming back and opining regarding Kirk's comments? I did request feedback from British editors as to one style matter, but it may be helpful to opine more generally on Kirk's comments as well, if you think it appopriate. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm reading the article, and will weigh in with some comments this evening. Brianboulton (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All done, though I did the subsection division a bit differently than what you suggested, for reasons I state in the FAC. Thanks for the nice things you said, though wp contains many better writers than me (including you) I do try to do my bit and am trying to write at least a few high traffic items to get FA quality items in front of as many people as possible.  I am strongly considering finishing up this royal trilogy with Princess Charlotte, there are recent books on her and it should not be a major project considering her lifespan.  Incidentally, the quirkiness of things like Gold Stick I think is what makes me a bit of an Anglophile, and I sighed with regret ever time Tony Blair abolished something quirky.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was quite a fan of Blair's until he teamed up with Bush. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto in reverse.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since we don't have Ernest as possibly benevolent dictator, could you go back and revisit your comments? I think I've addressed them all.  Thanks.  Got your note on Liberty peer review, I will try to do one myself but will be on the road for the next seven days so my time is a bit limited.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Smetana, Mahler etc.
I am greatly honoured. Brianboulton (talk)

More Smetana, more Mahler
Thank you for Smetana! Nice coincidence: just yesterday I came across a 1955 recording of the Bartered Bride. I nominated Mahler once more for DYK, the fifth this time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations for Smetana making TFA. You really did a great job with that article. Jonyungk (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Really, I ought to have twigged at once that today's front page was from the House of Boulton. Top notch, as we have come to expect. One is naturally shocked to find you working on a composer whose name doesn't begin with M, but we rise above it. Your tally of articles that give Grove and the DNB a run for their money is magnificent. – Tim riley (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all the above for their kind words. May I just say that I didn't nominate Smetana for TFA, Raul picked it from the pool, so I had no time to tidy it up beforehand, which I usually do. I hope it doesn't read too roughly. It is good to see so many music and composer-related articles coming to TFA. There could be more: a Mahler centenary in September, Walter Bache, my Monteverdis, and I think Wehwalt is going to take a punt with Tosca shortly. Keep them coming! Brianboulton (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My congrats too, a bit late - always good to see your work on the Main Page. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)