User talk:Ottava Rima/Archive 7

As per this I shall be on a pseudo Wikibreak until August or so. That will give me more time to concentrate on my non-Wikipedia article writing. If you need any help, please feel free to leave a comment. I shall respond here and do as much as I can help from here.

Sincerely, Ottava Rima The Italian Rhyme.

Sermons of Dean Swift
Just a quick note to say that I just spotted Sermons of Dean Swift, which seems to be all your work, and thought I'd just drop a quick note to say that it's a great article. Elegantly written and comprehensively referenced, I immediately assessed it as B-class, but I'm sure that it would fly through a good article assessment if you chose to submit it, and it is probably v close to featured article standard. Good work! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is misnamed, and it's odd that you keep this congratulations without keeping in mind the cautions about the quality of writing in the article from user:Geogre or the fact that you've lodged the article inappropriately from me. Still, it's your user talk page.  If you won't consider the relevant issues, you might want to remove the congratulations.  Utgard Loki (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for letting me know about the updates on the Drapier's letters. I have entered a very busy period at work and will be doing a lot of overtime in the next week and don't know that I will have time to carefully review the additions and changes. You seem to be very knowledgable about the subject and I wish you the best of luck in the nomination! TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Ottava Rima/Printers
I've userfied this for now. Friday (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

RE:Drapier's Letters
Unfortunately, real life is rearing its ugly head these days and I'm pretty busy; I'm not too interested in the topic either ;). Good luck with your editing though! Budding Journalist 18:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Elegant citation system
Hello Ottava Rima. I just took a look at Drapier's Letters, and noticed that system of the tags. It seems very neat, though I'm curious how much manual labor is needed. (I'm used to the WP:CITET business). Can you point me to where the new system is explained or documented? I imagine there are some other articles that might be able to use it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

De nada
'S my pleasure. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 16:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack Kemp
I have gotten Kemp to 60.2 KB. He will be under 60 KB within 24 hours. If Kemp were a 21st century pofigure with his same credentials, he would probably have five or ten WP:SPLIT articles just like current Presidential hopefuls. Anyone who is interested could probably make a complete article for any of the five sections in the politics section. In addition a new section could be started to detail his nine congressional races from the Buffalo News. I also think a football article could be created. That would give us seven split articles. Based on the sources I have access to I have exhuasted coverage of Kemp. I admit there is a great source at the Buffalo & Erie County Public Library with week by week history of the Buffalo Bills. I think it is the source I used to describe his late career knee injury. That would cover 7.5 years of Kemps 13 year pro career. I do not know if the Los Angeles/San Diego Chargers have the same sort of thing, but imagine you might be able to go to the San Diego Union archives if they don't. Probably there is a way to research Kemp's college career, but I do not have access to the Occidental College library. His name may have been mentioned in some Southern California newspapers for high school athletics. I do not have access to a database for this research. What type of article splitting do you mean?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Question
Sorry that was a mistake dude. King Rock Go 'Skins! 01:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Drapier's Letters should have been a GA years ago)just figure of speech). Hope we can keep in touch :) Cheers(What ever cheers means?) King Rock Go 'Skins! 01:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Picard
This is fun. How long can we keep it going? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 02:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah
I think you must have had a mental stutter when you made that one! Gatoclass (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

An FAC discussion that you commented on was restarted
The FAC discussion Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Getting It: The psychology of est, which you had previously commented on, has since been restarted. Would you care to carry your !vote/comment forward from the FAC before it was restarted? Cirt (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Christian doctrine
It still doesn't read right to me. Why can't you just replace the "Milton writes" bits with "The document states" or something similar? Gatoclass (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't be OR to just say "the document states" or "the doctrine says". That would just be a statement of fact. If anything smacks of OR, it is attributing to a particular person a work of uncertain origin. But if you insist on attributing it to Milton, I really think you need to tone down the bit about the controversy surrounding its authorship, because otherwise it just looks incongruous.


 * But I think I've had my say on this and I won't belabour the point. I am not going to disqualify it, but I probably won't promote it in its current state either. If someone else wants to promote it though, I certainly won't stand in their way. I'll leave a note to that effect on the suggestions page. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's fine, but then as I said I think you need to tone down the prior bit about the controversy over authorship. You need to make very clear that most scholars accept that Milton authored it, and only a minority challenge that. If you don't do that, there is a disconnect between the first part of the article and the second part. Gatoclass (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That definitely looks better, although ideally I'd like to see it reorganized a bit. But I think you've done enough now to make it acceptable for DYK.


 * However, there is still a small problem, and that is with the hook. The hook says the document wasn't discovered until 100 years after his death but the article says someone attempted to publish the work only a year after Milton's death. Both statements cannot be true. Gatoclass (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds fine. Just remember though, that the hook fact must be stated in the article, so you need to be sure to state in the article that the work was lost for 100 years and then rediscovered. I can't see any such statement ATM. And don't forget to add an inline cite. Gatoclass (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, you could just say it wasn't published until 150 years after his death. That seems to be supported in the article right now, and would probably be a more accurate statement anyhow. Gatoclass (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If it was hidden by the government, then it wasn't "lost", it was suppressed. But then you would need to add evidence that it really had been deliberately suppressed for that long. I think you should just stick to "not published until 150 years after his death", it's much easier to demonstrate. Gatoclass (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Or else you could say something like "was suppressed by the government of the day and not published for 150 years after his death." As long as you had a cite for the suppression, that would be okay too. Gatoclass (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not complicated at all. We just need a simple hook that is interesting to the reader, that's all. We are not trying to convey the entire history of the document in one sentence.


 * I have literally dozens of hooks to try and review for DYK every day. I have spent far too much time on this one as it is, and I cannot spend any more time on it. Either you can accept the hook I suggested, or you can take your chances on having someone else promote your preferred hook. I'm afraid I cannot spend any more time on this issue. Gatoclass (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)