User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 87

The Tower House
Bramshill House passed FAC, thankyou for your input. I've opened a peer review for William Burges's The Tower House. Comments will be most welcome. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Goodness, I thought Bramshill had been promoted long ago – well done, anyway. Yes, of course I'll look at The Tower House. Will you likewise comment on Mary Celeste? It's not at PR yet, but will be, by tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The above duly clocked in passing. I'm ahead of you at The Tower House PR, and will take my place in the patient queue waiting for the Mary Celeste PR to open for business.  Tim riley  talk    23:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Dank
Ding ding. - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Paul Kruger
Hello Brian, how are you? I have just opened a peer review for Paul Kruger and would be very grateful for any thoughts you may have if you can find the time. The PR is here. Thanks and have a great week. Cheers —  Cliftonian   (talk)  12:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * An important article, which I'll add to my list – should get to it later in the week. Can I in turn ask you, when you have the time, to take alook at Mary Celeste, my own current nomination at PR? It'll be there for at least 8–10 days, so no immediate hurry. Brianboulton (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll be there. Thanks Brian. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  15:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Reviews pending

 * 1) The Tower House
 * 2) Paul Kruger

Books and Bytes - Issue 10
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 10, January-February 2015 by, ,

 Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * New donations - ProjectMUSE, Dynamed, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and Women Writers Online
 * New TWL coordinator, conference news, and a new guide and template for archivists
 * TWL moves into the new Community Engagement department at the WMF, quarterly review

Yesterday's TFA
Was there anything I should have done different? Would you like me to drop you a note whenever the FAC nom(s) is/are no longer active? - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you did fine; it's part of my job in scheduling to check the viability of my selections. I ought to have realised that an article describing the history of a football club with little editorial activity in recent years, and low reader viewing figures, was bound to be out of date, and I shouldn't have scheduled it. If you have have doubts about any of my future choices, by all means raise them, but don't feel that it's your responsibility – you have enough to do. Mea maxima culpa. Brianboulton (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The general problem of figuring out whether an old FA has deteriorated seems pretty hard to me. I'm happy to defer to you and Chris on these questions. I'll let you know if anything looks fishy in the future as I look at each one. - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Gary Cooper
Brian, if you have a few minutes to spare (per impossibile) I'd be grateful if you would look in at the FAC for this article, not to do a full review, but to see if you think I have been unfair in my comments responding to those by Snuggums. If you think I have been too high and mighty I shall acknowledge it, but I was (and am) concerned to defend a first-time FAC nominator from what I think are indefensible objections. I fired with both barrels, but the target is an editor I have run across before and thought well of. I am perplexed, and would welcome your thoughts.  Tim riley  talk    13:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Brian. Your quiet calm deliberation disentangles every knot.  Tim riley  talk    15:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

attenuated?
Sorry, I don't know the exact meaning of the term you used for Burges, but don't understand "try out" either. The unspeakable thing has been in place since July 2013, and stable, - the discussion is about changes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Attenuated" means shortened. I believe that a shortened version of the box, i.e. without the trivia, might be a solution worth trying, instead of these endless, sterile debates where everyone simply restates their position in an atmosphere of growing antagonism which ends in some people being banned from engaging in the discussion at all. Now, please, I have other things in my life. Brianboulton (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

British Bangladeshi GA reassessment
British Bangladeshi, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Mutiny
Hi Brian. I am starting a userspace draft here for the Mutiny on HMS Bounty. I know that some years ago you authored the article on the mutineer Peter Heywood, and so know about the subject and presumably find it interesting. Would you be interested in working together on the mutiny article at some point in the future? Hope you're well and having a pleasant start to the weekend. Cheers, —  Cliftonian   (talk)  17:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, yes, what a great idea! I have a ton of material still, from Heywood. It's just a case of fitting it into my schedule, which I'll be quite happy to amend. With Mary C nearly done now, as far as preparation and writing are concerned, I am currently working on the Jarrow March, which will occupy me until mid or late April. I could slip the mutiny in after then, if it suits you. Or later, if that better fits your own timetable. Let me know what plan would suit you best. Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have much source material, so expect I will need assistance in that area (I plan to make the meat of the article with source material gleaned from elsewhere, then fill in the gaps). If you would like to get going in a month or two that would suit me nicely as it would allow me to build a skeleton article at a relatively leisurely pace that we can then work on together. So I think late April or early May would suit us both. If in the meantime you would like any help with the Jarrow March, or reviews or what have you, please let me know and I'll do my best to help out. I will keep my draft in the sandbox linked above meanwhile. Cheers, and "Huzzah for Otaheite!" —  Cliftonian   (talk)  19:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This could well turn out to be one of the most anticipated articles of the year! I think Sir Laurence currently has the crown though and might take some doing to surpass it!♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Review request
Hello! We haven't met, but I noticed that you are a respected and active reviewer and writer of high-quality content. I wondered if you might be interested in helping me with an article I wrote that is now at peer review: Peer review/Irataba/archive1. It's about a Mohave Chief who was quite an interesting character. The FAC was recently closed due to issues with the prose, but since I've done most of the editing to the page it's getting more difficult for me to find and resolve problems. Tim riley graciously took a look the other day, and his much-needed feedback was wonderful. I'd be greatly appreciative if you took a look, but I understand if you are too busy or uninterested. Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll put it on my list. Give me a few days, though. Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's great! Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Brian, I've made some additions and edits to Irataba today myself, it really is a worthy subject once you get into it! Tim and myself have reviewed it so far. It would benefit from wider reading and reviewing from page stalkers too to ensure it's up to scratch! I've left some comments on your Mary Celeste FAC, will happily support once addressed, it's rather enjoyable reading about ships gone AWOL, I hope you have more in the pipeline!♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if you look at the previous thread, you'll see that I'm being tempted to work on the Bounty, so your wish might well be gratified! Thanks for your interest in Mary C, I hope to get to that review this evening. There may be a little delay before I can look at Irabata, as I have much non-wiki stuff in the next few days as well as trying to keep abreast of numerous wiki-related duties. But I will get there. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Bounty itself! Wow, that's a bit more ambitious. I'd be overjoyed at seeing that one at FAC, and the rate that you work I'm sure it'll be there before April Fool's Day!♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It will be a bit after then, but you can meantime slake your curiosity by reading, or re-reading, Peter Heywood, the story of one of the secondary figures in the mutiny, which was TFA a few years ago. I haven't looked at it recently so it may be in a bit of a mess. I'll tidy it as necessary when working on the Bounty article. Brianboulton (talk) 09:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Emails
EMails sent Friday and Saturday, please check inbox. 2.31.179.146 (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The Tower House
Thankyou for your input into the peer review. The article is now at FAC. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Oom Paul
Just dropping notes to all the peer reviewers that Uncle Paul is now at FAC here. Hope you're well, cheers —  Cliftonian   (talk)  13:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Workers' Barnstar.
For your excellent, much appreciated work on Margaret Bondfield; I had never heard of this woman prior to seeing her on the Main Page today. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Joining the choir: good to see the TFA face and character of a woman 2015 today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Peer review/Enthiran/archive2
I have opened the 2nd PR as the article's first FAC was withdrawn recently due to prose issues. Feel free to leave comments. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me '' 13:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was not involved in the first PR, nor in the fairly lengthy FAC review which resulted in the nomination's withdrawal. I do not see my way to a detailed involvement now. However, a few words of advice. The first PR was extensive, with contributions from nine editors, and the FAC brought three more long sets of comments. The fact that so much attention could not bring the article to FA standard possibly suggests some underlying fault. Or perhaps you are being overwhelmed by comments and don't know what direction to take. In either case, in my view a period of reflection, and some solid work on the article, would have been preferable to a rapid renomination at peer review. You might again find yourself drowning in suggestions. I hope that does not prove to be the case, and wish you well. Brianboulton (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

More Emails
Two more sent today 2.31.179.146 (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2015
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC).

Benjamin Morrell FAR
I have nominated Benjamin Morrell for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Green C  02:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jarrow March, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Durham and Walter Runciman. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Free for a PR?
Hi Brian, You were kind enough to comment at PR and FAC on Casino Royale; could I ask for a similar favour for the next instalment of the Bond series: Live and Let Die, which is now at PR? Any thoughts or comments would be greatly appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. Give me a few days though. Brianboulton (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 25 March
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Jarrow March page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=653523601 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F653523601%7CJarrow March%5D%5D Ask for help])

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Irataba
(moved message or I'll lose it)

Hi, Brian! Thanks for your comments at Peer review/Irataba/archive1. They were extremely helpful. I was wondering if you would be willing to take another look while the PR is still open. There have been lots of changes since you last commented there on the 12th, so I was hoping that you could take another look at the article as it sits right now, but before I close the PR. What do you think? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

As you probably noticed, Victoriaearle has joined the PR and is in the middle of making suggestions. So, if you are still willing to take another look during the PR it would probably be better timing to wait until she has finished her review. If this is agreeable, I'll come back here when everyone else is finished. How does that sound? Rationalobserver (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Irataba
Thankyou for your input at the peer review. Irataba is now at FAC. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

A small favour
Do you have time to look at Three-cent silver, presently at FAC? Thanks much.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. Please always feel free to notify me when a coin article comes up – in the past they have sometimes slipped beneath my (not very efficient) radar. I'll try and get to it before Wednesday, as I am taking a few days' break then. Brianboulton (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As you can see, it's been promoted. If you have not invested great quantities of time in it, the next FAC should be McKinley Birthplace Memorial dollar, the subject of which speaks for itself. I am looking for last minute sources and will probably nominate it sometime today.  I do have non-numismatic articles in the works, but they are not quite ready yet. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah. I will leave the few points I had noted on the three-cent silver article on its talk page. I'll keep an eye on the FAC page, regarding the latter article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sorry about that.  It was promoted quickly.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Peer review of 1877 Wimbledon Championship
Hi Brian, can I interest you in a peer review of the article on the inaugural 1877 Wimbledon Championship? Besides being the first edition of the Wimbledon Championships it was also the first official tennis tournament and as such has historical significance. It is my first peer review request and so far it has not received any review comments. The article has GA status since mid 2013 and I am the major contributor, although it was not created by me. Hopefully it can be turned into an FA, which would make it the very first FA article of the WikiProject Tennis. I am not sure if the topic is your 'cup of tea' but if you have an interest and some time I would certainly welcome your comments.--Wolbo (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks interesting, and definitely of historic importance. It would, I agree, make a suitable TFA perhaps for the final day of this year's tournament. After today, I am away for a few days so I won't get to it until the weekend, but it's on my to-do list. Brianboulton (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, look forward to your comments. FYI the date of the Wimbledon men's final is 12 July.--Wolbo (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)