User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 55

Ping
Hi there, I believe I'm done with the suggestions form your peer review, please take a look at the 2010 Pichilemu earthquake article :) Diego Grez (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please respond to the individual points in my review, outlining how you have dealt with them? Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!
Dear Brian, wishing you all the best on your birthday and in the coming year! Happy Birthday! Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Many happy returns. Apologies on being one day late. I was following the national preoccupation on your b-day of stuffing myself with too much barbecue and watching things blow up. Jonyungk (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for remembering. Good to know you're still about and maybe editing again soon. Brianboulton (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I've been editing (just followed your advice from some time back and switched to US warships when I started burning out on the Tchaikovsky series) but thanks for the encouragement. I may get to work on Anton Rubinstein sometime soon. Jonyungk (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Britten
I know it's a while off (November 1913) but I saw something the other day in a magazine or newspaper pointing out that it's Britten's 100th anniversary next year, which seems like an excellent excuse for a TFA. Given your interests, I was wondering whether he was, or might be, on your long-term "to do" list. If so, I would be delighted to help out with some writing or reviewing, as it would give me an excuse (not that I need one) to re-read the Carpenter biography and listen to some of his fantastic music. Just a thought. Regards (and belated happy birthday, I see!), BencherliteTalk 13:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In principle I would very much like to work with you in getting the Britten article up to scratch. It looks fairly feeble at the moment. Another editor who might be interested in this project is Tim riley, who is rather more knowledgeable on 20C British composers than I am. He was responsible for bringing the articles on Elgar, Walton and Stanford to FA, and was co-nominee with me for the Frederick Delius FAC, which we prepared for the 150th anniversary and then both forgot to nominate for TFA!. I vaguely remember raising the subject of the Britten centenary with Tim some time back.  If my recollections are correct, he was not too keen at that time on the idea of taking on Ben, but  he could well be interested in working on the  centenary article as part of a collaborative editorial project. He is on a wikibreak at the moment, but when he returns I'll see how he feels about the matter. He'd be a good partner to have on board.  My hands are pretty well tied up for most of the rest of this year with Cosima Wagner, L'Arianna, Reginald Heber and  The Rite of Spring (the last one with Tim) all on the drawing board. But I can provisionally make time in or around December/January for a new project. Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good. I hope Tim is interested - I've seen his work around the place, of course, but I don't think our paths have formally crossed. (In fact, if you and Tim were to take on the task, I would quite happy to make the tea for everyone and simply admire the gleaming creation emerging in front of my eyes as you worked away!) There's bags of time, and some extra sources (academic appreciations and the like) might well end up being published next year anyway. We can play it by ear, as it were. BencherliteTalk 19:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Pride & Prejudice (2005 film) FAC
Hi Brian, hope this isn't too much of a bother, but do you have any more comments to add to Featured article candidates/Pride & Prejudice (2005 film)/archive1? Ian Rose left a delegate note about possibly soon closing the nom. Thanks,  Ruby  2010/  2013  19:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ruby, I will definitely take a look later today. It's been a difficult couple of months for me, with two periods of hospitalisation and lots of sleep-inducing drugs which have hampered my WP activities. I am more or less on the ball now, and am glad you reminded me about P and P. Brianboulton (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm so sorry to hear that! Hope you get better. Fabulous work on Cosima Wagner by the way. What an interesting subject!  Ruby  2010/  2013  20:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Cosima promoted, well deserved! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Congrats on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:


 * Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasit &#124; c 17:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Peer review/2011–12 Manchester United F.C. season/archive1
I've decided to put the other two on hold while this one is completed and all relevant things that make them "current nominations" have been hidden. Kingjeff (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine Brianboulton (talk) 07:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your review and for your forbearance during my time of minimal internet access. I've made the changes you've suggested to the nickel article. Actually, although I have an overview article on the early 20th century redesign sitting part-done in a sandbox, that's about the only thing numismatically coming down the pike anytime soon. I may salvage some of what RHM22 had in process, but I'm not in a hurry to do it. I have two more 1896-era ones coming, then am likely to work with PumpkinSky on getting some of his former FA back to the star. --Wehwalt (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope the cruise went well. I have not been too active these past few weeks but am gradually getting back into full swing. If you have a moment, could you take a look at Cosima Wagner, now at FAC (you contributed to the PR)? It's hard to get comments on music-related articles these days, with Tim and others away and the Wagner project itself moribund, and I wouldn't like to see this wither on the vine. Brianboulton (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took so long. You caught me on my return from my twice-annual sea trip.  Now safe until December.  I'm sure it will pass shortly.  It's a slow time.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not in any particular hurry to see it off the page, I just get fidgety when there is a lack of comments. But some older noms are in a much worse fix: I am just off to review Muckaty Station, which has been at FAC since 29 June and has no substantive comment as yet. Very hard on the nominator. Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Once I'm back up to speed, I'll take a look at that or another one. Incidentally, I have not forgotten your comment on Eric Cantor and the nickel.  So far, all the sources I have found seem to be derived from an interview Cantor gave about it, in which he did not say why they approached him in particular (his district does not include Monticello).  I have not yet exhausted my resources, but it may need to go on my list for the next time I get to the ANA library in Colorado Springs; they have back issues of the coin periodicals from that era.  They didn't start keeping them online until later.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Cantor is not a deal breaker, though it would be nice to know a bit more. Brianboulton (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, given Cantor's present prominence. I may post on the coin bulletin board where I found someone to supply images for the articles, you may remember how much of a crisis that was at one time.  I am helping out with one near the bottom, Chinese Indonesians, btw, unfortunately I have found some sourcing issues.  If you have a moment—I know your work time is limited—could you run your eyes over United States Senate election in Ohio, 1898, parked at PR after a lengthy GAN?  Don't worry about it if you can't.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I had noticed this. Give me a day or two and I'll review it. I have an upcoming article for peer review, which I'll let you know about when it gets there (one of my more offbeat efforts) Brianboulton (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I look forward with interest, and promise not to peek.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Cosmo Gordon Lang
Hullo, Brian. I have reverted your removal without explanation of Lang's consecration from the ibx. The date of his consecration is mentioned and sourced later in the page, so it belongs repeated in the ibx. DBD 20:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is typical of the mischief created by overenthusiasm for infoboxes, when odd bits of information are included with no context. The consecration date is of course that of his becoming Bishop of Stepney, but there's nothing in the box to indicate this. It is just shown as a date, and thus its only effect is to confuse people which, unfortunately, is largely what infoboxes tend to do, unless they are compiled with care. That is why I removed this misleading information; I think the onus is on you to explain why it should be reinstated. Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For exactly the same reason as his ordination: because those were when he was ordained to each of the three orders of ministry. They are significant events in his primary area of notability: as a cleric. DBD 23:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You miss the point, which is how is the general reader supposed to know to what the unexplained "consecration date" refers? Terms like "ordination" are widely understood, particularly in the context of an article about a clergyman, but terms like "consecration" have a specific meaning within the church that not many will know. Most likely the infobox reader will relate the term to Lang's becoming an archbishop, and thus be misinformed, confused or both. The commonsense rule for infoboxes is that they should only contain information the nature of which is self-explanatory, but common sense arguments rarely prevail in such cases. Brianboulton (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Learie Constantine
I would be grateful if you could do the review. I was planning to ask TRM to have a look at it as well, but I always like to have the views of non-cricketers (which you technically aren't, but I'm sure you know what I mean) who maybe see what I can't, being so close. In addition, the length worries me slightly, and I would like someone to tell me which bits could be cut right back. I'm afraid it is always going to be a longish one, given all that he did in his career, but I cut back as much as I could and need someone to tell me what else can go but still leave it comprehensive. Also, given his significance outside of cricket, I think a non-cricketer may be preferable as I would like the balance to be right. Sorry for the long, rambling answer, and as ever, please feel free to tell me to go away with my silly cricket articles! Sarastro1 (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've basically stolen your changes again from the sandbox. These were exactly the sort of cuts needed, so this is much appreciated. Sorry it's taking me a while to get to things, but I've been a little snowed under. The weekend and next week look a little quieter; fingers crossed... Sarastro1 (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine; I'll do some more slash and burn over the weekend and see how it goes. Brianboulton (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:Featured article candidates/Osiris myth/archive1
I don't know if you've seen my response here, but I wanted to make sure you did. In short, I screwed up during the peer review by not enumerating what changes I'd made in response to your comments, and by not asking if you thought they were sufficient. I didn't ignore any of your suggestions. A. Parrot (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Muckaty Station/archive1
Thank you very much for your excellent comments, in particular identifying the fact that the whole history section was a bit rubbish. I've finished responding and re-writing (I think). Let me know what your view now is. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well done, I will read it again, tonight or tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

William Lax
I have affected your suggestions on William Lax. Tell me what you think, as it is still under FA review here Featured article candidates/William Lax/archive1. Farrtj (talk) 07:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that the article has been archived. However, I will look out for it, if you should bring it back to FAC in the near future. Brianboulton (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Deep Thoughts
Gratz on Cosima. I'm musing about an A-class process for WP:Composers. You can find some of my deep thoughts at WT:MHC. (I'm not thinking of you guys interning at Milhist, although if anyone wants to, I'm all ears. I'm thinking that you guys might be able to put together an A-class process for composers that could generate FAC-worthy articles and attract interns of your own.) Is there sufficient interest, do you think? - Dank (push to talk) 17:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Apart from Tim riley and me, no one seems to be working on classical composer biographies; if there are others, I'd like to know who they are. Since my editing time is a bit more limited now that it used to be, I'm not sure I would have time to put together an A-class process, or be much use in mentoring interns; Tim is currently on a wikibreak, and it may be better to raise the matter again when he returns. Brianboulton (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brian. - Dank (push to talk) 20:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you asked...
...to be notified, Featured article candidates/Boden Professor of Sanskrit election, 1860/archive1 is now open for business. I will try to look in on Rev. Heber's PR at some point, work permitting... Yours, BencherliteTalk 22:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Most interesting article. I confess I only saw it because I noticed it below mine on the FAC rolls, and was somewhat miffed that mine was not the oldest or quirkiest election article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Les pêcheurs de perles
Hi Brian. I fully concur with you on this. I'm finding a lot of this kind of stuff and not only on FAs where it is particularly inappropropriate. Listings of future performances are even more inappropriate, and this applies to all articles as far as I'm concerned. Sometimes it's opera companies/singers seeking publicity for their own performances. e.g this by an IP that traces back to the opera company. Other times it's by well-meaning editors who tend to treat encyclopedia articles as if they were opera magazine articles. The "will be peformed" additions (inherently unencyclopedic in my view) are almost invariably sourced solely to the opera company's website. Only very rarely is an upcoming performance so notable and so rare that it receives significant independent coverage months in advance. I've been meaning to bring this up at the Opera Project for a while to get some other opinions on the general issue. As I'm about to start my annual month-long stay in deepest darkest Tuscany and many other members will also be away, I'll probably do so in the autumn when more members are around. One way around this tendency is to add a link to the Operabase database entry for the opera in the external links section. It lists performances in the last year and future performances for the next 2 years. example for Les pêcheurs. If the reader really cares, they can click on it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent suggestion: I have added the Operabase link to External links, which should help the problem. I will keep an eye on this; all opera articles are to an extent vulnerable. I'm deeply envious of your forthcoming trip to Tuscany; it looks as though, this year, I won't get futher south than Camberwell. Brianboulton (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Peter Sellers
Dear Brianboulton, I hope you don't mind the interruption, but I have recently sent Peter Sellers up for peer review. If you have any time or interest in the subject, I would be most indebted if you could have a look at the article and provide and comments or suggestions. It's not a problem if you are unable to comment. Many thanks - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 09:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I have some prior commitments, but if you're not in too much of a hurry I will look at it in a few days' time. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be great: many thanks indeed. As to the speed: it's not a problem at all - I'd like to get this right, rather than speedy. Thanks again. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 13:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Brian, I'm speechless: that is a wonderfully full and thorough work through. Thank you so much indeed for all your efforts. I'll work through this and make all the necessary changes. Thanks again. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto. As soon As I saw your comments on the page, I knew we were in for a great PR.  My sincere thanks. -- CassiantoTalk 08:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If you have a moment ...
I have no doubt you are following the Queen in the new national sport of skydiving, or some such thing, but if you can spare a moment from the Games which must be going on at present, could you run your eyes across Joseph B. Foraker, presently at PR here? There is absolutely no hurry in the matter; it need not use the Games lanes. I hope all is going well.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw the old boy was up when I checked through the latest PRs yesterday. At the moment I'm waiting for Tim to return so that we can get down to some serious work on The Rite of Spring, and I am pushing the Revd Heber slooooowly towards the starting gate (no hurry there). So I have a bit of time for Mr Foraker and will look forward to doing it later this week. If the University of Wehwalt decides to award degrees in late 19C political studies, I may even qualify; or perhaps honoris causa? Brianboulton (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite so. And I know more about early 20th century English composers than I ever thought I would.  Thank you for your work.  I thought Foraker would be a bit dull, but it brightens up late.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, it will be next up whenever Senate election clears the page. Which reminds me, it perhaps escaped your gaze that the delegate had left a question for you there.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Learie Constantine
(Moved from further up page, in case it gets overlooked)

Re your point over "five guineas", none of my sources seem to make this clear. Do you have anything that would provide this explanation? Thanks for more "slash and burn", it's looking much more concise now. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think I can help much over the guineas. Perhaps a pipe link to Guinea (British coin), and add in the text after "five guineas", in brackets, ("just over £5"). You'll have to forget the bit about the legal profession's proclivity for guineas, in the absence of a source. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your great work on this. I think you've really gone above and beyond the call of duty here. Would you be interested in a co-nom when I put it at FAC? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer. If you think it would help the nomination, I'd be pleased to co-nom. Bear in mind, though, that I don't know a lot about Constantine, so would not be able to field many substantive questions. Also, I'm aware that the scale of my effort is small in comparison to yours. I'll leave the decision to you. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be a pleasure, you would be invaluable on prose, and will restrain my overenthusiasm for long cricket articles! And I owe you several favours, so it is the least I can do! It may be a few days as I'm a little busy for a while, but should be either this week or early next week. I'll let you know and thanks again. Sarastro1 (talk) 08:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. In the meantime I will probably nominate Reginald Heber, which won't disturb my right to be a conom on Constantine. Let me know when Learie is up. Brianboulton (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)