User talk:Per Honor et Gloria/Archives5

Siamese revolution (1688)

 * Congrads. It's a really good article--Work permit (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:KeyingMedal.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:KeyingMedal.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. BJ Talk 12:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Japanese Battleship Satsuma
Hi. I'm afraid I take exception to your two added specific references to the Battleship article on Satsuma. Here's why; the Sandler reference isn't itself cited, and there's nothing to suggest that he performed any original research into the genesis of the Satsuma design. With the second reference, Hugill would have you believe that the Satsuma and Aki were the same, when in reality there were substantial differences between them and they're listed in the same class for convenience, as with H.M.S. Queen Mary and the Lion class. Hugill cited Gibbons Encyclopedia of Battleships, which is hardly the most reliable of sources. The Sondhaus reference mentions the oft-quoted myth that Satsuma was waiting on imported guns, but doesn't source it.

As I've laid out before, on the Dreadnought article discussion it might have been, it is very difficult to generalise about the Satsuma because there is so little information about her. What is known is this; the Japanese naval constructor Wasaburô Kaneda prepared a plan for a battleship with 8 twelve-inch guns. Contrary to what Breyer suggests, this was never even taken before the Japanese Admiralty for approval. The 12 twelve-inch gun ships were approved under the 1904 Wartime Warship Construction Program, at which time the Tsukuba and Kurama classes were approved. The Japanese were already aware that they wouldn't be able to afford enough foreign-made (Armstrong) 12-inch guns with the number of ships being laid down in 1905, nor would they be able to manufacture enough of their new 45 caliber 41st (Year) Type 30-cm IV guns, which is what both Satsuma and Aki were eventually fitted with. There is no record of Japan making enquires to arm the two ships with Armstrong guns. There is no proof that the reason for Satsuma's prolonged construction period was due to a radical re-design. Antony Preston, who has been used a source for Satsuma being laid down all-big-gun on Wikipedia manages to contradict himself in his Battleships and his Battleships of World War I on the subject, and of course his earlier works are unreferenced.

Unmentioned anywhere other than Military Industries of Japan published after WWI is that with the commencement of the Russo-Japanese War Japan could no longer import ships and guns anyway due to neutrality laws, with the result that in 1904 she resolved to construct everything to do with her ships in Japan - Kongo being an exception to this rule nearly a decade later.

Of course, the above is just background. The main part is that I have seen no source give a reference, let alone a valid one that Satsuma was laid down as an all-big-gun ship. With a featured article one would have thought that such uncertainty wouldn't be good enough for inclusion. --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 19:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If memory serves Jane's Battleships of the Twentieth Century" isn't referenced. That book is essentially a mass-market coffee table edition, and just because it has the Jane's name on the front I'd hardly call it reliable.  I have the original 1906 and 1914 editions of Jane's Fighting Ships and no mention to any other armament than the as-built configuration is mentioned.  As to my source, admittedly the only source I have is from Cassiers, an American engineering journal which features an announcement in January, 1905 of the IJN to lay down a battleship of 4 twelve-inch guns and 10 ten-inch guns.  From November, 1905 there is an item in The New York Times'' referring to the construction in Japan of a battleship of 12 ten-inch guns.   --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 20:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

ants images
Hi, I asked a question about some of your (rather nice) pictures of ants here commons:User_talk:PHGCOM. Hope you can help. GameKeeper (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks for the compliment! I confirm I am the creator and copyright holder of these photographs, and I will be delighted if they are used in the ants article. Cheers PHG (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Random question
I am asking you because you are a prior editor of the article Roman trade with India whose name was just changed to Roman trade with modern India. I am wondering if you agree with this name change, as it took me by surprise. Do you think the new name, and the reasoning behind the name change, is correct? Regards, – Mattisse (Talk) 17:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TheOriginalJesus.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:TheOriginalJesus.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by an adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 09:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅. Faire use rationale properly described I believe. PHG (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification
We are back at WP:RFAR. You are invited to make a statement. Jehochman Talk 18:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:TheOriginalJesus.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:TheOriginalJesus.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Siege of Bangkok
Hi remember there is a History of Bangkok article. Could you expand this and summarise the siege and other events of note in that article? Cheers Keep up the good work  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 10:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Mentor
Hello PHG. I understand you're needing a new mentor since Coren is not active at present. I don't know if anyone else has volunteered. Looking here, it seems not. I would be willing to do it. Let me know what you think, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I suppose you are aware of the BNF's Gallica site, but have you seen Persée? The Bulletin de l'École française d'Extrême-Orient, for example, may be useful for background for your Siamese stuff.


 * I generally save my advertising copy for job applications where people expect it. Anyway I'm not really a very reliable source when it comes to describing me and my doings fairly and without bias. You can look at a list of stuff I've done here. My talk page is nicely archived if you want to have a look at that. My RfA was rather a long time ago, but maybe there's something interesting there. You could always ask Elonka ... or if you have some specific questions I'll be happy to try to answer those. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. PHG, I want to finalize the mentoring arrangement. Are you going to accept Angusmclellan's offer to work with you? If so, let me know, ok? FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been accepted by the Committee, so I've archived the review to the case talk page and Angus is now (officially) your mentor. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

boxer rebel image
You labelled a boxer rebel image - Boxer_Rebellion&direction=next&oldid=74933647 I was wondering, what script of characters this is, which way to read TBRL? Also can you verify the content as it appears counter-logical to me. "Boxer" being the western nickname. Did you make it up? Pbhj (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The banner on the image simply reads "欽令 義和團糧臺". This is Chinese (pre-simplification characters), it reads from top to bottom, right to left. The term used for "Boxers" is 義和團, meaning "Righteous Harmony Society", which usually translates in English as "Boxers". As far as I know, if we chose a totally word-for-word translation it could be "Imperial Order - Righteous Harmony Society Provision (糧) Platform (臺)". Cheers PHG (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Can I quote you on the talk page? PalaceGuard008 has also provided a translation so the two will given credence to the translation. Thanks. Pbhj (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. It would be nice to also have the view of a native speaker. Cheers PHG (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Randier Sources
Indeed, I would think Randier a first-class source. I only have L'Épéron et la cuirasse myself. I'm not sure if I have any books which I could check for you. I'll have a dig and see if anything turns up. Lots of modern text books tell us that la photocopie non-autorisée est un délit, but they never mention scanning. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Dossiers d'Archéologie is a popular magazine, but the articles are written by experts and signed, and the thematic issues at least have expert "subject editors" (i.e. "coordination scientifique"). So, yes, Lafont in Dossiers d'Archéologie seems to be an appropriate source for Christianity and Buddhism, so long as you aren't going to use it for anything enormously controversial. But having said that, opinions published in Dossiers d'Archéologie seem, a priori, most unlikely to be controversial. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

山海輿地全圖
山海輿地全圖 (Shanhai Yudi Quantu), 1606, compiled in the Sancai Tuhui (三才圖會).

Also 山海經/山海经 Shan Hai Jing map.

歐羅巴: Europe, 以西把尼亞: Espania, 拂郎察: France, 意大里亞: Italy, 熱爾馬尼亞: Germany, 拂蘭地亞: Flanders, 波羅尼亞: Poland, 翁加里亞: Ukraina, 大泥亞: Denmark, 雲際亞: Sweden, 諾勿諾亞: Norway, 厄勒齋亞: Greece, 莫斯哥未亞: Moscow, 甘的亞: Crete, 意而蘭: Ireland, 大諳厄利亞: Greenland, 泥羅河: Nile River, 福島: Canaries (Fudao), 亞蠟皮亞: Arabia, 爪哇: Java, 三佛齊: Srivijaya (Sanfoqi), 韃靼: Tartary (Dada),

Credible author
Hello. A credible authors' reference is being "overrided" by edit-warring. I recently tried to add to the telescope article but this editor seems to think that his opinion overrides a VERY credible author in Mr. Richard Powers. I've been blocked before for edit-warring recently, so I don't want this to be another incident on my record.

Anyway, the other editor seemed to have asked his friend-type editors to form a consensus, so I will do the same. The Islamic connection here is, Al-Haytham. He is FUNDAMENTAL to the telescope and the FATHER of optics. By definition, the summary can include him since the radio and electro-magnetic telescopes are derogatory to the average person looking at the article; I wanted to add it to the history section since it looked cleaner. Can you help your fellow InternetHero?? InternetHero (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ouch
Dear all. My personal laptop has just been stolen, so I might be quite inactive in the next few weeks. Thank you all for your understanding. If the person who has stolen it happens to read this page (who knows?) I would be OK to make a deal to purchase it back. I've changed my Wiki password, so my account here remains secure. Cheers PHG (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheonhado
Hi, PHG. I see the discussion on Cheonhado. I think it is impending to be discarded because of the creation date and a lack of source for expansion. Due to several Romanizations being applied to Korean subjects, you could not find English sources with "Cheonhado" but you could see "Ch'onhado" or "Ch'ŏnhado has fair amounts of English sources. However my writing speed is very slow, so could you expand the content with these if you have a time since you're the creator of the article? Thanks. --Caspian blue (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Slander, maps and the Indo-Greek kingdom
I don't think slander is an appropriate word to use of a disagreement over sources. Evidently it's not a legal threat, but it doesn't help the discussion. If Blnguyen believes that the sources - where is this discussion anyway? - don't say what you think they say, it is right and proper to say so. That's not an attack, or an incivility, or a slander, it's just a statement of fact. I do hope you'll reconsider. And if you have a dispute regarding sources, I would be happy to help with an outside view. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeoji jeondo
Hi, PHG, thank you for visiting my talk page. I don't know I can answer your question because I'm not knowledgeable of the subject. The map is actually titled "Yeoji jeondo" (여지전도, ), and the reading of hanja is of course, different from Chinese and Japanese. Therefore, I replaced your uploaded image at Commons with the name. Korean Wikipedia already has the article on the map ko:여지전도 which refers to Oh Sang-hak (오상학)'s thesis. I think it is a good subject as an article whose name would be rendered with alternative Romanization just like Cheonhado. --Caspian blue (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Southeast Asia in the Early Modern Era
Hello. I'm sorry to say that I nearly missed your question about Southeast Asia in the Early Modern Era. Yes, this would be a good source. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Nagazumi Yōko
Hello. So far as I can see Mrs Nagazumi's works would be good sources. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Procedures and formalities
PHG, at Requests for comment/Elonka you've written a comment to oppose an "outside view". I recommend you refactor that to create your own outside view. At RFC/U we do not allow opposes on the project page. You can explain reasons for opposing a view on the talk page if you like. Jehochman Talk 00:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I wasn't aware of that. PHG (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:HanWudiBuddhas.jpg
Hey there, could you tell me where exactly you found this image? Image sourcing concerns for an FAC, you see. Thanks; it's appreciated. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I left the source information on the image page. Cheers. PHG (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for participation in User:Abd/RfC
Because my participation as a Wikipedia editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Your appeal
You may wish to modify the second part of your appeal request. Jehochman has filed an arbitration request on Elonka; obviously they aren't tag teaming you. It may help your position now or at some future appeal to refactor that part of your statement in light of this development. With respect, Durova Charge! 02:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Point of order: User:Bishonen filed that arbitration request with no input from me. Jehochman Talk 03:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would not have advised you, had you asked, to go to ArbComm yet, you didn't have your ducks in a row. I think it's possible for you to develop grounds for a lifting of the ban, under proper conditions; but having your mentor, for example, on board, would be a prerequisite, I'd think. You ran aground on Wikipedia politics; and those conditions require you to put extra effort into negotiation. It's unfair, in a sense; you are clearly better, far better, than the average editor, and average editors aren't banned. Indeed, there are special problems dealing with articles in your area, particularly where you have access to obscure sources, but there are cooperative solutions to all of that. You are an excellent writer, and excellent writers sometimes manage to realize that they need excellent editors, and if they don't find such, readily, they'll have to educate them. Which requires treating them with meticulous respect, etc., etc. You have asked Newyorkbrad for specifics. I hope he finds time to answer you, I'm sure he will if he can manage it. But you could also be proactive. It looks like, now, the request for a lifting of the ban will not be granted, which, quite simply, understanding the politics, surprises me not at all. As you know, I don't favor the ban, but this is a community which runs on consensus, and to change consensus can require patient work. As they say, if you are going to shoot the King, don't miss. Whenever you file a request of ArbComm, if it isn't granted, it probably irritated a few editors and maybe arbitrators. Next time, if you are going to act before the year is up, make sure those ducks are walking one after another.


 * I was, I believe, improperly blocked, but if I simply went to AN/I and demanded that this be recognized (block log annotated), I'm pretty sure of what would happen. Editors would look, make snap judgments, and, well, the results wouldn't be pretty. I'll need to gather support, first, essentially to confirm that my judgment that it's improper is correct. That's what the self-RfC mentioned above is about. So far, no participation to speak of, but ... I've only begun. It's one thing to go to AN/I and stimulate comment by many relatively uninformed editors, quite another to solicit comment within a deliberative process like an RfC, particularly one where I can insist that comments and evidence be connected. (And where it will be obvious what comments are evidence-based and which ones are mere opinion.)


 * I think it's unfair, what happened to you, because the articles you write, with all the problems -- and, yes, there were real problems -- are better, far better, than the average Wikipedia article. I don't think there is any question but that the project is better with your participation than without, and that includes the areas where you are presently banned. The essential problem was incivility, which usually takes more than one offender to become a true difficulty, and good meditation and facilitation, if the various involved parties had cooperated, should have been able to find a consensus in which all parties would benefit. Since the Wikipedia community, apparently, doesn't understand, collectively, much about how to do that short of bans and blocks, which are crude instruments that can easily do more damage than good, we have to do it ourselves, those who see the need. I was blocked for, essentially, intervening with strong argument in the topic ban of a young editor. Ultimately the community accepted the result I was striving for, and, I believe, most of my arguments would be supported if examined in a deliberative environment. Without my intervention, it's highly likely that we would have lost this editor, who has been highly productive, with hundreds of decent articles and decent stubs created and 30 DYKs. So this is how I'm building the project, by trying to keep good editors at work creating good articles. Not perfect articles. With your level of contributions, it would be amazing if you didn't make a certain number of mistakes, but, politically, a small number of errors can loom large if not presented as a percentage, and examining all your articles minutely for mistakes would be an enormous task. I see that you were criticized for not participating in the "cleanup" of articles you had worked on. There is a misunderstanding in this. It's quite difficult for a writer to clean up their own work, and it's really better if someone else does it. Yes, it's good if the writer participates, though not tendentiously. (The ban shouldn't prevent you from doing this, you'd merely comment in Talk, being, of course, careful to merely inform and confine yourself to the text, not to the persons involved). But it is not essential, and, mostly, we don't expect editors to clean up after themselves, and we even breathe, sometimes, a sigh of relief that they don't return and revert or argue endlessly about our "spoiling of their beautiful creations" by, say, nitpicking about sources....


 * You can solve the problems you have with the community. To do it quickly would be difficult, perhaps, but not impossible. It was a serious mistake to even name the other editors, such as Jehochman and Elonka, in your request to ArbComm. They could have made themselves parties, if they wanted, but what you wrote about them was really quite irrelevant and counterproductive if your purpose was to get a review from ArbComm. Politically, very bad move, it looked awful. But it was also improper for other reasons. If they were guilty of misconduct, that could and perhaps should be addressed separately. But ArbComm decided on your ban, not those editors, and by essentially accusing ArbComm of being improperly swayed by the evidence and arguments that they presented, or by complaining about their actions in enforcing the ban, you actually impugned ArbComm itself, not a great idea if you want to gain their support. I think that if you make good faith efforts to openly address the issues raised by Newyorkbrad, in particular, who, after all, did spend serious personal time looking carefully into the charges, that you might find him a valuable ally. Develop these relationships; in the mean time, you've still got a pretty big playground, history after the medieval period, and your articles continue to be a blessing to the project. Oh, yes. Don't forget. Be nice. Many of us, including myself, need to be reminded of this when we forget. --Abd (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, PHG's sanction was a "cut and dry" content matter, having nothing to do with politics. I personally dislike politics.  It is very wrong to sanction users for political reasons.  I also think PHG can get out from under any sanctions by 1/ stating something like, "sorry for any past mistakes, I know better now, thank you for the help", and 2/ waiting a while and having the mentor propose lifting sanctions, as you suggest. Jehochman Talk 03:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Siege of Bangkok GA
Hello! I have noticed that you have been making significant improvements to the Siege of Bangkok article. I am not sure if these are in response to my GA review, or just because you felt like it. The original nominator appears to have abandoned the article, and you seem to be the only one working on it currently. Although improvements have been made to the article over the past week, there are still several of my concerns in the GA review that have not been addressed, including the length of the lede, named references, uncited areas, and image location. Would you like me to leave the GA review open longer to give you time to address these concerns, or do you have no interest at all in the review? Please let me know here, on the review page, or on my talk page. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ieyasu
Original Japanese of the Jacob Groenewegen missive: "Orandabune Nihon ni tokai no toki izureno ura ni chakugan seshimuru to iedomo sôiarubekarazu zôrô. Kyoko konomune o mamori iginaku ôraiserarubeku isasakano soi arumajiku sôrônari. Yote kudan no gotoshi. Keichô Jûyonen Shigatsu Nijûgonichi. Chakusu Kurûnbeike." 

Franco-Mongol alliance
You may wish to read the Report on use of sources in this case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I answered on the same page. Best regards PHG (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi PHG! I am satisfied that the report has sufficiently laid out, in the open, ArbCom's own view of the sources on this article for all to review. In the presence of their report, I must of course reserve my own judgment, and I do not need to comment further on it in response. Discretion always cuts both ways.
 * The report also indicates the path forward by which the article can fully achieve FA standards. I certainly sympathize with you in the "crusades" that all of us engage in to get WP as historically accurate and circumspect as possible, and I'm very thankful we've been able to ally together on this cause, or at least make attempts to do so. I wish you well in your future endeavors on this subject and others. If you ever need an outside opinion on an edit, please let me know. JJB 14:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Siege of Bangkok
PHG - thanks for the heads-up on my talk page. I disagree with what this user has done, and have left him a note on his talk page alerting him that closing another reviewer's GA review is considered rather rude. However, with that said, I cannot reverse a GA close. I would support a quick renomination of the article for GA status though, and promise to do the review as soon as I get a free minute.

There are a couple of minor referencing issues left in the article, which was the main reason I hadn't passed it before this. Basically, the way I go about looking to make sure everything is referenced in an article (at least for GA), is to make sure there is a reference to a solid source at the end of every paragraph. There are several tag ends of paragraphs with no references still left in this article, which would be an immediate red flag for me that the article is not quite at GA standards. If you were to fix these couple spots before the renom of the article, the review process would be smoother and faster :) Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The referencing now looks good. Before renoming it for GA, here's what I would suggest that you do:


 * Make sure that all of your refs that are duplicated are named. I think between the two of us we've gotten all of them, but take quick look to make sure.
 * Run through the prose one last time, looking at it as a whole, to make sure that everything flows nicely. I haven't looked at the prose in its entirity since my first analysis of the article, so I'm not saying there is anything wrong for sure, just suggesting that you check.
 * Perhaps bulk up the lead a little bit. You have two fairly short paragraphs for a 20 kb article, which is a little on the short side.  I would say two solid paragraphs or three shorter ones would be ideal.


 * Other than that, the article looks very nice. Please consider resubmitting it for GA, and I will be happy to review it quickly (although quickly might be a couple of days, depending on when you get it up). Dana boomer (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

re Autogyro image
Hi, you added an image into the History section of the above of the "Breguet Autogyro". As far as I can see, the section does not mention Breguets invention (it is almost entirely Cieva related text, certainly at the start). If you have any information about Msr. Breguets craft it would be gladly received - and I can imagine that without it someone (not me) is going to remove the image as "not illustrating the text" or something... Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll try to come up with some more information. Cheers. PHG (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)