User talk:Cassianto/Archive 28

Notice
Hi, The Rambling Man (Featured list director) said that List of Grey's Anatomy cast members did not meet MOS:DTT. Therefore, he had a user (RexxS) give me a recommendation on what could make the table accessible. I acted upon his advice, and completely rewrote the 'cast' section of the list. You supported the list at its candidacy, so this is a courtesy message to inform you that the list has been significantly changed since you supported. TRLIJC19 ( talk  •  contribs ) 22:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I know nothing about the  technical side of things so my support was not based on that.  I based it on the lead section and the content within the tables on the reader's page.  As long as this hasn't been altered, then my support will still stand.  RexxS is superb and helped me with my FL a few weeks back.  He is very helpful and accomodating so feel free to ask him anything.  I will pop back over to record my thoughts.  Cheers. --   Cassianto Talk   22:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Request
Hi. Could you look at Featured article candidates/Awake (TV series)/archive2 and Featured article candidates/Nightswimming (Awake)/archive1? If so, I'm open to doing something in return. Cheers, TBrandley 01:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The Rite of Spring
Just to you know that The Rite of Spring, which you recently helped improve via the peer review, has now been nominated at FAC. Any further observations will be welcome there. I have followed the PR consensus, and removed the substandard soundfile; it is possible that this decision will be challenged, but we shall see. Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sadie Harris
Hi, again :-) Is there any way you could review Sadie Harris at its featured article candidacy? It's fairly short. Thanks, TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad too. I'll get to it later today. --   Cassianto Talk   00:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikilove

 * Well thank you, that is most kind. I hope to have it fully peer reviewed in a week or so and at FAC by November :-) --  Cassianto Talk   14:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm still interested in helping you out on it but I've been busy. I might have time today, I'll work on the JdM article first though today.♦ Dr. Blofeld  06:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. I'd be glad of your help on either :-)  --   Cassianto Talk   08:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"Going, Going, Gone" (Grey's Anatomy)
Hi again, Cassianto. When you find the time, could you please leave comments at Featured article candidates/Going, Going, Gone (Grey's Anatomy)/archive1? Thanks, TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 00:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, looks like I missed the FAC. I will review if you decide to re nominate in the future . --   Cassianto Talk   18:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyways. I withdrew it, and will probably nominate a different article after the 2 weeks pass. TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar
Hi Cassianto, thanks very much for the Barnstar. It is much appreciated. I've done quite a few GAN reviews now (hundreds: more than 4 less than 5), but barnstars are few and not very often: yours is probably the 12th, so I tend to remember them. I'm happy to provide help with the nomination at FAC should it be needed. Pyrotec (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Chapman
Not a problem, and thanks for the fixes. Any comments also welcome, and it is always good to hear from non-cricket people. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Peter Warlock
Thanks for your late comments at the PR which I have now closed. The article has been nominated at FAC; any further comments will be welcome there. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Grimaldi
Hi. I've done the MS one, but you'll have to fix a few of notes which strayed in the process. If you could check that and ensure I didn't mess anything up I'll do the other ones later. You see sfn automatically does the ref bunching for the same pages etc. If its not desirable to you I can always revert, but seeing it through isn't really a mammoth task at all.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Fleming
Has now passed the MilHist A review, which is nice... Are you up for another FA bunfight?! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 09:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy too. I'm just doing a read through and have done a few bits and left a hidden comment.  Hold off nominating until I'm done (I have to make my name known to the edit history At least a few times :-) --  Cassianto Talk   10:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * just scheduled, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Peter Sellers discography
Hi Cassianto. Yes, I did have a reason for archiving the Sellers FLC. It had been at FLC for almost two months, a very long period, and only one reviewer had indicated support for promotion. Merely having editors cap their comments isn't enough to show a consensus; we need to see something showing that they think the list meets FL standards. If reviewers don't offer much support, us director's can't jump in and proclaim a consensus that isn't there. Had the list received more support, I'd have been inclined to leave the FLC open and see if it would be reviewer further, but that didn't seem likely to happen. Since all of the comments at the FLC seem to have been addressed, I wouldn't object to a quick renomination, and I hope more people take a look at the list if you decide to do that. Giants2008 ( Talk ) 15:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The only further advice I can give is to not press too strongly for supports in your messages to the previous reviewers. People may think you're trying to canvass for support, even if that isn't your intention. A neutrally worded message asking for another review is fine, though. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 18:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up.. We are just letting the previous reviewers know that it has been re-listed and are asking them to update this review with what they should have done on the last one.  I will copy edit the messages.  Many thanks!  --   Cassianto Talk   18:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Image on the Ian Fleming TFA
Hey, just a friendly heads up: Wikipedia does not allow non-free images in TFA blurbs, and has never made exceptions to this rule. That is why there was no image for the October 23 TFA blurb, and that is why I had to remove the image you inserted.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  16:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I forgot. Bloody stupid policies! Thanks for letting me know --   Cassianto Talk   16:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Your review at the Jaojoby FAC
Hi Cassianto, I believe I've responded to all your comments on your helpful FAC review of the article on Jaojoby. Would you kindly have a look to see whether my edits and responses adequately address the points you raised? Cheers, Lemurbaby (talk) 06:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Grimaldi peer review
I'm really sorry that I didn't get to this; I've been so busy recently. It looks like a fascinating subject; I'll try to find some time for a look-through if you nominate it at FAC/GAC. J Milburn (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey no worries, RL has a habit of taking over Wiki-life. Crisco very kindly went through the images and all were OK after a little massaging, thankfully.   I will be taking it to FAC sometime in November.  Your comments there would be very much appreciated.  Hope your well! --   Cassianto Talk   14:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Pierre Monteux
I thought you may be interested to know that after some email discussions with Tim riley, and some final polishing, I have co-nominated Pierre Monteux at FAC. This was Tim's current project when he decided to leave Wikipedia, but I think it is worthy of consideration for promotion. Any comments will be welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 10:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! I'll start having a read now. --  Cassianto Talk   16:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Re:Stanley Holloway
Sadly not. This is drifting slightly into lawyer territory, but the law looks pretty unambiguous to me- assuming 1903 and an unknown author, it would fall into the PD in 1973, apart from the fact it was published while still in copyright. As such, it retains copyright for 70 years after publication. I've nominated it for deletion on Commons, and updated the PD template on enwp. Sorry about that. J Milburn (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to help out where I can- drop me a line when it goes up/when you want the review and I'll do my best to find some time for it. J Milburn (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate your thoughts...
I've started a thread at Talk:List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series; I'd appreciate your thoughts, if you could spare the time and have an opinion. It revolves around replacing the current table with this one, which is out of place in a production history article. Any thought you have would be much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi. Your colleague requested that I give you rollback rights, and after a cursory review of your contributions, I don't think you'll abuse it. Please review WP:ROLLBACK and use it well. :-) Should you not want it, please let me know and I'll remove it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fully within the rules! A general rule of thumb is to not use rollback on anything but clear vandalism; a legitimate albeit misguided edit needs to be reverted with a reason (so you should undo it instead). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Return of old codger
Having merely put a toe back in the water I have nothing much on hand just now, and am at your service if I can be of use in any Cassianto projects. Tim riley (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Brilliant! Joe Grimaldi has had a PR and will be imminently going forward to GAC, with FAC scheduled for around Christmas. Until that fateful month of horrid, yet useful criticism to take place, I have started to look about for my next biggie. Having worked with Ssilvers on Dan Leno, it would be an honour to work with my other great mentor on something of our mutual choosing. Any ideas?   --   Cassianto Talk   00:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Grimaldi
Thanks for the invite. I'll read it through and see if I can pick any nits - probably there won't be many, given the loving care and attention that's been lavished on the article.

Coincidentally, you might be interested in an article which I saw in the Guardian yesterday. More interesting stuff in a google search for Ron Moody and Joey (or "Joey, Joey"), especially on the first two pages, where, among other things, old copies of "Plays and Players" magazine show Moody as Grimaldi. I'm wondering whether a sentence about Moody and his show might be added to the legacy section? Best. --GuillaumeTell 18:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, Ron Moody's musical Joey was presented for the Christmas season at Bristol Old Vic in 1962. Four years later, in 1966, it played in Manchester then titled The Great Grimaldi.  It was then rewritten and played in London as Joey, Joey at the Saville Theatre in October 1966 but flopped. See also this, this and this.  I would say that:  Ron Moody wrote and starred in a musical about Grimaldi's life called Joey, Joey, that, after tryouts, had a brief run in the West End in 1966.

BTW, Kaldari made this change. I think, however, that the writer in Bentley's Miscellany must have been talking about people playing the role of Clown in pantomime, not the other clowns in pantomime, and certainly not other kinds of clowns, like circus clowns. I mentioned it to Kaldari, who changed it back, but he would like confirmation. Do you agree? If so, kindly confirm my understanding to him. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Have begun reading the Grimaldi article, some minor comments so far. I started Astley's Theatre, can you source, time permitting. Also, could you give me a list of the plays Grimaldi appeared in which you think are worthy of having articles and I'll see what I can do. Best.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  14:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks a lot Doc, high five to all involved. It was an honour and pleasure to research and write about such an interesting performer.  --   Cassianto Talk   13:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Congrats - hope you're having a nice rest! Can I mention something that bothered me a bit in the article when I saw Dr. B's Astley contribution and the ill-starred Irish venture, and nosed around a bit.  There is mention of Charles and Thomas Dibdin, but it isn't clear which Charles Dibdin is meant.  Looking at the Boz edition of Grimaldi's memoirs, it's clear that Charles is Thomas's brother, not his father, who had apparently retired by then.  Maybe "Charles the younger", or "Charles, Thomas's brother" or some such formulation would make things clearer.  (And I wonder whether the younger Charles ought to have an article to himself?  But maybe he's too peripheral.  Just a thought.) --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 11:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Now done here ---  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk    17:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi GT thanks a lot for all your help, I will elaborate a little. In what section would it be better to elaborate on this? --  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   13:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It was the Covent Garden years section. I've just made a minor alteration so that the sentence now says "He was engaged to appear at Astley's Theatre in Dublin, in a play by Thomas Dibdin and his brother Charles...".  I could have sworn that Boz refers somewhere to the brothers Dibdin but now I can't find it.  The Charles Dibdin article makes it clear that their father had retired in 1805.  Hope that's all OK. --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 17:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that reads a lot better. It does make reference to the brothers, I'm sure this is correct.  I will have a look through McConnell Stott and Boz tomorrow just to confirm.  I will start a Charles Dibdin article from the sources I have in my box too if I get time.  I'll ping you a link to it when its up and running. Thanks --   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   20:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at the Grove Opera article on Charles Dibdin the elder. There's a little bit on p. 1158 about his son Charles, whose name turns out to be Charles Isaac Mungo Dibdin (1768-1833), "who managed and then owned Sadler's Wells (1800; 1803-19)".  I'm guessing that Isaac may have been a tribute to Isaac Bickerstaff, who started collaborating with Charles the elder in 1767-8, and that Mungo was named after a character played by Charles the elder in one of those collaborations (The Padlock) which premiered in 1768.  (Or maybe I'm completely wrong!) --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 18:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, CONGRATULATIONS. Pyrotec (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Never did I think I would get 10 supports! I'll see you on the next one if that's OK? --  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   20:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well done, Cassianto! Loud applause! Thoroughly merited. Tim Riley (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thankyou Tim. --  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   20:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
— ΛΧΣ  21  22:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * More fixes done :) — ΛΧΣ  21  02:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Neville Cardus
I don't think I know where you stand on cricket, though I know you're onside for classical music, in which case I hope you may feel inclined to look in at the peer review of Sir Neville. I am very much the junior partner in this overhaul, but both Brianboulton and I will be glad of any contributions to the PR. Tim Riley (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A man after my own heart who indulged himself "...through the worlds of reading and of music hall and pantomime." Although certainly not in expert in this field (ouch!), I will endeavour to offer some comments in what promises to be a very interesting article. --   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk    22:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

FAC
Mark finished his copyedit. I think it is ready now. Would you mind taking another look? It think it's ready now. — ΛΧΣ  21  03:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Greg LeMond
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I appreciated the feedback you provided concerning this FA-nomination, and I responded tonight (though I have not had any opportunity to yet edit the article). I'm committed to the article on-going and would like to see it through to FA-status. Thanks. joepa T 23:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's good, because it could be excellent and is of a worthy subject. I suggest opening a peer review before coming forward to FAC.  I would be happy to assist with any problems or advice should you need it. --   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk    00:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Since the article is clearly not making FA-status now (even though my co-editor has responded to some of the criticism stated in the review - he just hasn't spoken on the FA review itself yet, though I encouraged him to), what will happen next? Is the nomination closed or held open for some period to allow us the time to account for all the suggestions? We're absolutely willing to address everything requested of us, it's just a question of process. It was disappointing though that during the nearly two months spent on it, we could obtain no additional input so is there a mechanism to ensure Peer Review? That is, given that we informally requested this of others interested in the subject, and actually went so far as to request input directly from several (who, to their credit, offered at least brief responses), what can we do to actually obtain more feedback if we're unable to achieve the status responding solely to the objections raised as part of the FA-status review? (the bureaucracy of wikipedia is foreign to me) Thanks again for your time. joepa T 00:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's a worthy subject, BTW, and one that I enjoyed contributing to in no small part because of my intimate and long-standing involvement with the sport and individuals like the subject. We really are motivated to get this FA-status, and I have a feeling that if the process isn't too arduous or unpleasant, we would next edit either Armstrong or VInokourov to improve both those articles. Winter is a good time for this, eh? Too cold and too little light to ride! ;) joepa T 00:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I will give you my opinion which you may not like. I think there is too much to fix and sort out during the FAC and so I would recommend you put a little note on the page saying so and ask for it to be closed. A delegate will come round and close it officially and then it will be archived by a bot.  I would then initiate a peer review and leave some messages on the talk pages of reputable editors to take part (just look at other FAC's for user names).  It is surprising how much an article can improve during this process.  Laser Brain is great and should take part and I don't mind dropping in if you'll have me. Post a message on the wikiproject page too if you can informing them of your intensions and give a link to the peer review page. Once the review has taken place and you are satisfied, I would close the PR and get it re-assessed at GAC.  I know of a few excellent GAC reviewers you could try. No disrespect intended, but the GA review last time was not that good and allowed a barrell full of mistakes to linger within the article un-noticed. With a decent peer review, you will have no problems at GAC.  Likewise, with a decent GAC you will have no problems with FAC. This is the sequence I prefer to work in and I always come out on top. I am glad your motivated and I wouldn't let this early rebuke put you off.  I am willing to help every step of the way if that help is needed. Beware, don't go to FAC thinking it is a fluffy island full of fluffy marshmallow clouds and candy covered conversations; its not. At its worse, It is a hyper-critical and very outspoken process.  At best, it's a very helpful, very informative and excellent way of improving the article, to ensure FA status.  Don't react with fire if the comments go against your views, just assume  good faith and answer them best you can, but most of all be honest.   --   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk    08:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I can only speak for myself, but my only goal is to obtain the FA-status for the article, not to preserve or feature my work as part of that process. So I'm not emotionally-invested in the article as it stands now that I wouldn't gladly make whatever changes needed to be made in order to meet the standards. I thought we were lucky, at first, in receiving a review of the article for GA-status, since a similar review request for a page on Bradley Wiggins has lingered for several months without even someone expressing an interest in reviewing it. But now I see that the review that was given, while seemingly well-intentioned, lacked useful feedback for our longer-term goal. My one concern is falling into a pit of animosity or personally-motivated criticism of the article that doesn't provide the road map necessary to improve it. Like I said, the commitment to do the work is there, as is the access to research and, owing in no small part to my own experiences with the subject on-going, we have the subject-matter expertise. I'm not familiar with the bureaucracy of wikipedia though, or with the negative aspects of any internal processes. If the article will require 30hrs work to improve - fine, you know? We really, genuinely (or at least I really, genuinely) just want guidance on what specifically needs to be corrected, added, removed, reformatted, etc. Your willingness to help therefore, is greatly appreciated. Before we were to request the closure of the current review process, however, would you be able to recommend to me at least one or two other editors or reviewers (how you say?) who could be recruited to assist the project? As I said previously (I think?) two of us spent over a month editing the article off and on, improving it but also requesting and hoping for the participation of some others, and even though there were 40 editors "watching" the page, there was literally no substantive feedback or contribution of any kind from anyone but my co-collaborator and I. Really, we just want to make the best article possible but of course without being jerked around or treated unfairly or unprofessionally. And you've been great thus far, very professional, fair and helpful. One thing - has the article's GA-status suddenly become invalid or void? Because I am leery of voluntarily abrogating that status as it was achieved honestly, to the best of my understanding, and the thought of waiting two-plus months for someone to agree to review it (again using Wiggins' article as an example) is dreadful and I can't speak to my availability that far down the road. I'd be much more comfortable with the idea of terminating the current review and assembling a group of capable, willing editors to subject the article to proper peer review, something we were unable to organize before arriving here and coming into contact with more sophisticated wikipedia users such as yourself. Thanks again for the insights. Cheers. joepa T 09:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am drumming up support from a few friends, also FA contributors, with a view of peer reviewing the article. Once I have them on board, please wait for the FAC to finish and then initiate a peer review.  We will all review and give our thoughts.  The trick with GAC is to badger editors into reviewing.  You need to sell your article for a quick response.  I know of a few who would take it on, but we will cross that bridge when we come to it. --   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk    09:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Aaliyah FAC
Hi. Would you be interested in commenting at my featured article nomination for Aaliyah (album)? FAC is naturally backlogged, and any input would be appreciated. If not, no need to reply. Dan56 (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes OK, give me a few days and I will happily look it over. --   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk    20:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
I really appreciate your review. Also, I've implemented all of your suggestions, except one.  ceran  thor 14:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks for the barnstar!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. It's great the both him and his list went through consecutively.  Your help was invaluable. --   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk    13:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I add my congrats. Excellent work! Tim riley (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Edits to my article
Thank you very much for your edits to my first Wikipedia article Manuel Campoamor. It reads so much better now! What a wonderful talent you have to craft changes that contribute so significantly to how the article reads and flows. Gotanero (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. It still needs a lot more work i.e  his personal and professional background, critical reviews of his music etc, but it sure is going in the right direction... I will be looking in with interest. --   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk    20:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

H. C. McNeile
Many thanks for your time and thoughts on the McNeile peer review. The article has now progressed to FAC for consideration. Thanks again. — SchroCat (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Drury Lane
Here's. The theatre did not change between 1812 and the 1890s. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. I will do some work around the unknown artist and then add the correct tag once I have shown that I have made a reasonable enquiry to obtain, as I know that will be asked.  --   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk    20:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

FAC
Hello sir, we would like your suggestions on the fac. Featured article candidates/Priyanka Chopra/archive1. Please, review it and represent your thoughts. Thank You. Prashant  ✉  18:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)