User talk:Sarastro1/Archive 15

Timing
I see that the FAC page mentions you and Ian as "determine the timing of the process for each nomination". I also see that WestJet Encore, an article that I nominated and improved from a 9 line article to FAC, has been re-classified as an "older nomination". Would you kindly determine if the timing is right to be FA? Thank you. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

And,....
You can see why I quit doing source reviews. I didn’t call it a juvenile work, I noted that worldcat classifies it as one. And speaking of actually looking at things closely, I do adore being called a he. I also note that nothing about the iTunes source was addressed.Ealdgyth - Talk 23:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I know... I don't blame you at all. In all honesty, if someone had scripted it, it couldn't have been a more perfect example. Sarastro (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m thinking of adding a parenthetical “(I’m female!)” to my sig ...do you think it’d help? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * (TPS) : Darn, you fixed your typo before I could make a wig joke. Anyhow, you could try something relatively subtle, like "Talk to her" for your User Talk link. --RL0919 (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I quite like "I'm female!" personally. Though I suppose subtle is better. Boring but better! Incidentally I've been presumed female a few times on here. Not quite sure what to make of that, on any level... Sarastro (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * And I'm sorry but this source does not actually support the statement "Sega rereleased the soundtrack to celebrate the Sonic franchise's 20th anniversary"because the itunes listing doesn't say WHY Sega released it. It does say it's the 20th Anniversary but it cannot support a reason for the rerelease that isn't given. It's a WP:SYNTH/WP:OR problem. You can say that "in May 2011 a 20th Anniversary edition of the soundtrack was released." which the website would correctly support ... but not what it currently is supporting. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

FAR
I've done all the updating I'm going to do for that article. The areas that had been poorly updated before were the ones lacking sources, so that should be better too. I haven't done the thorough copy-edit pass I promised, but another 10 days or so and I'm home free regarding my real-life work, so I'll be able to become much more active again if I don't get to it before then. Giants2008 ( Talk ) 02:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Wally Hammond selected as TFA for 19 June 2018
This is to let you know that the Wally Hammond article has been scheduled as today's featured article for June 17, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/June 17, 2018.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, could I ask you to check to ensure the placement in career runs and career centuries remains accurate and update the article accordingly? I'd do it but I don't have access to CricketArchive.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for Wally Hammond, "a cricketer in the 1920s and 1930s, regarded as one of the best cricketers of all time, becoming captain of England and being the first former professional to captain the side. He was a moody so-and-so and not especially popular but had a few interesting things happen to him"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations!JH (talk page) 08:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Learie Constantine
Just a "heads up" that a new biography has just been published: Connie: The Marvellous Life of Learie Constantine by Harry Pearson. JH (talk page) 15:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As the co-author of the Constantine article, (and the current expander of Leslie Hylton), I think "hagiography" rather than "biography" would better describe this new book. I've not read it all, but a few furtive peeks in the local bookshop indicate that it is far from being a critical study; the title rather gives the game away. But it may well be a decent read. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Very, very delayed reply here as I'm just emerging from hibernation... I'm inclined to agree with on this one. Hagiography pretty much covers it and there's nothing new in there that isn't covered by Mason and Howat. I got around half-way through it and gave up. Sarastro (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

FAC William Pūnohu White
I’m getting extremely discouraged by the FAC process. I’ve nominated William Pūnohu White three times and each time there has been no consensus or lack of comments. Any advice on how to get it pass?KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry I've been swamped IRL for the last month or so and I'm just getting up to speed again. The only advice I can give is the usual: open a peer review and invite some reviewers (maybe those who've commented on previous FACs or some who know how FAC works) to take a look. The other option is to look at the list at WP:FAM and see if someone will work on the article with you. I know that you don't really need mentoring as you have 4 previous FAs, but if this one is proving a bit of a hurdle, it might be that a co-nomination would help attract some review. Sarastro (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don’t think it’s mentoring that I need. From the people who’ve I asked, they have supported the FAC in the past. Three supports, two comments, and one opposing user who did not give me specifics to improve the article besides saying prose is not engaging. It’s a highly niche topic and unlike my previous FAC are not short which is my explanation for that. I have been able to address reviewers concern when they actually give the article a detailed, legitimate review instead of stating they don’t like it without specifics passages mentioned. My problem is having it sit there and not be even looked at except when I ask people to look at it. All my attempts except for the ones related to Hawaii civil war soldiers have met the same fate. My last attempt at FAC Featured article candidates/Riro Kāinga/archive1 (I received communication from an Rapa Nui scholar that it was a great article) garnered one image review which is prompting me to almost give up on FAC at this point now. The only reason why I’m nominating James Wood Bush is because of the same formula that have worked in the past on my other successful FAC. I will start a peer review on White and hopefully that would garner some potential reviewers who can help me with the review process in another push. KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Peer review/Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979/archive1
I can see that you're not around much at the moment, but if you get a chance, anything more you can suggest at Peer review/Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979/archive1 would be a great help ahead of a future Featured nomination. Harrias talk 10:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I should be around a little more now, I'll certainly take a look. Sarastro (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Mullum Malarum
I thought FACs only get archived if at least two weeks pass without any activity. In fact, had agreed to give further comments soon (no canvassing), and  had only one comment left to solve, all on the day before the FAC got archived. Even with three support votes, would Mullum Malarum have still failed the FAC due to lack of many reviewers? Or should Vedant have posted the message "I will do that tonight" on the FAC page, that could have delayed the closing? -- Kailash29792 (talk)  06:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ve only time for a quick reply, but there is no 2 week rule like the one you mention. The (ideal) maximum time should be 2-4 weeks, 6 weeks is usually long enough that an article is archived if consensus is not reached. This article has been open more than 9 weeks. At that stage, it’s better for the FAC to be archived. But this isn’t a case of only having one chance. There is a mandatory 2 week cooling off period, then you can renominate the article and ping anyone who reviewed before. Sarastro (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Offer of help on Tetricus
Hey Sarastro1, I'd like to take up your offer of help on Tetricus I; the article improved a lot over the course of the FAC, but obviously still needs some work. What aspects of it do you think need to be fixed before it can be ready to go? -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  23:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you can give me until the middle of next week, I'll take a good look and see what needs to be done. Sarastro (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Crown Jewels of the UK FAC nomination
I am registering my disappointment that you took seriously MarchOrDie's oppose to Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom based on three grammar mistakes in the lead, which comprises 5% of the article. I will not be re-nominating the article at FAC. After 2½ years' work, being made to nominate the article again because of such flimsy opposition feels like a bit of a piss take. But then Wikipedia needs another Featured Article more than I need one, so... Firebrace (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry you feel that way. However, Casliber thought there were valid points in the oppose as well, and found one or two issues. But even if we disregard that oppose, one support after a month and little activity recently did not suggest that consensus was likely to emerge. Had this been a newer nomination, I would happily have left it open longer. Many articles take a couple of attempts to pass, and I do hope that we see you at FAC again. Sarastro (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you today Arthur Mold, a "cricketer who was incredibly controversial in his time. Mold played cricket for Lancashire and England in the 1890s and was one of the best bowlers of his time. But towards the end of his career, he was "found guilty" of cheating: he was judged to throw rather than bowl the ball, which then, as now, was a huge slur on someone's sportsmanship. There had been whispers for years, but opinion remained divided. His career was very publicly and humiliatingly brought to a close in 1901 and he faded away."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you today for George Hirst, "a Yorkshire cricketer who played before the First World War, setting some pretty unrepeatable records and impressing everyone with what a nice chap he was. He was a very good all-rounder who was one of the first cricketers to deliberately make a cricket ball swing when it was bowled; this is currently the number one weapon in top-level cricket. He later became a very respected coach who worked successfully with both Eton schoolboys and very rough-and-ready Yorkshire cricketers."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Seven years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you today for Arthur Gilligan, "a fairly mediocre cricketer who captained England because he was an amateur. He may have been good, but an unfortunate injury at the height of his powers effectively ended his career. But the real interest is that he was a fascist. No, really. He probably tried to set up fascist groups in Australia while he toured there as captain in the 1920s. On the other hand, he was highly supportive of Indian cricket when few others were, but was (very) indirectly involved in the clash between the cricket establishment and opposition to Apartheid in South Africa. A bit of a mixed bag really, and quite hard to get a hold of."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Bythe
Hi. Ages ago you left a note on my talk page pointing at the sandbox work you'd done on Colin Blythe some time before. I'm thinking about dropping the stuff you'd done in on the article and using it as a way of building on the latter part of his life. I can do the military stuff without a problem and the memorial and so on I have plenty on as well. I doubt it'll be as well done as your stuff, but it would be a way of starting.

I'm just checking if you'd mind me doing that? I know you're not around all that often, but I won't be in a major rush to do this. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. Help yourself. Sarastro (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

2019


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

a time for thanks and praise

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Alt text
I would support an RfC that required alt text for featured articles, I just have not made the time to create it. I will get alt text on all the images, and closed captioning on the video, at some point.  Kees08  (Talk)   23:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It used to be required but, without looking it up to be certain, I believe it became a little controversial and so we are left in the current situation where it is up to individuals. Sarastro (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

toggle ref check
Hello, just a note to say that User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck has been update to add the option to toggle it on or off.

'''The installed script will add a tab to the drop-down tab at the top, located between the 'watchlist star' and the search box (using the vector.js skin). The tab toggles between "Hide ref check" and "Show ref check"''' with displaying the errors as the default option. You may need to edit Special:MyPage/common.js and change User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck to User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck (add the "2" after User:Lingzhi). Please do drop me a line if you have any problems or suggestions. Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you again. After the addition of a toggle option in the tab atop the page, one editor requested a revised version in which the toggle link appears in the "Tools" section of the page's left sidebar. So now there are two versions of this tool. If you prefer the links in the Toolbar section on the side, the slightly altered script is named User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck-sb.js (just add "-sb" before the ".js"). Finally, both versions should now also store the page state (whether reference errors/warnings are "hidden" or "shown"). The state persists between page loads and between the browser closing and reopening (unless cleared by the user, for example by deleting data in your browser's cache etc.). Huge thanks to User:Evad37 for much coding help. If you have any questions or problems, please drop me a line. Thanks again. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Planar transmission line
Thanks for this. My problem was certainly no basis for an oppose, or to delay the promotion of what is an excellent article - I just don't like having someone edit war when I'm trying to help them! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I realised what had happened, and I wasn't treating it as an oppose. Not a problem at all, just one of those things! Sarastro (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Sarastro, I'm not following your closing comment. What is it you want me to do next time? SpinningSpark 22:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing as such, it's more a note to remind myself. Periodically, we ask for spot checks of sources, usually from new nominators but also if there has been a gap between nominations. I could have requested one for Planar transmission line, but I think we'd had more than enough review! Next time, I might ask for spot checks. That's all the note means. Sarastro (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Leslie Hylton
I'm not so active on Wikipedia these days, but in the past months I've been working on the Hylton article. Les Hylton was the prewar West Indies Test match bowler who was hanged for murder in the 1950s. It's a sad story' one which I would like to bring to a larger readership if possible. If you can find a little time in your busy schedule, I would greatly value any comments you care to make, particularly on the cricketing side but also on any other aspect that strikes you. You may recall that a few years ago we combined forces to bring the Learie Constantine article to FAC – without any mention of Hylton although we covered his two Test series. There's a talkpage review thread in operation rather than a formal PR, and perhaps you could add any comments you have there. I would be most grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Email
I replied to your email at the email address I have for you. Let me know if you don't receive anything. Cheers! Johnlp (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Arthur Mold scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Arthur Mold has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 27 May 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/May 27, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Peter Vincenti ga nom
Hello. I thought I should give you a heads up that your signature in this nomination page is showing a date from 2010. I've no idea why that's the case. Are you time traveling? ;) Just kidding, but I do wonder what happened. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

George Hirst scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 7, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/September 7, 2019—Wehwalt (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Herbert Page.jpg


The file File:Herbert Page.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton
Hey, hope you are well. At the start of this year you left some very helpful comments on the FA nomination of Lewis Hamilton. A lot of work has gone into the page since, and I wondered if you'd be able to review the page again in light of those comments and advise on progress toward FA standard. Many thanks. –  Formula One  wiki  00:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Arthur Gilligan
Thank you for correcting the errors I made because of my lack of a deep understanding of the game of cricket. It's very unfortunate that you feel: "The rest does not seem an improvement, and it is easier to revert than to go through extracting minor wording changes". In my estimation that is not the case. By doing so you are also introducing errors. So it goes, I guess. Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , with the greatest respect, if you are introducing errors when making your edits, that hardly seems particularly helpful. Perhaps I'm wrong, but errors of fact seem rather more important than errors of grammar/phrasing/flow. This is an encyclopaedia after all. Feel free to correct any of these reintroduced errors, although I would question whether they are errors or stylistic preferences; however, perhaps you see something I do not, and it is quite likely you know more about this sort of thing than I do. I will not argue or revert. As you may have seen elsewhere (and I myself only just saw today), there is some irritation in "FAC-land" at this pre-TFA copyediting. I would question how necessary this process is, but that is just my opinion and I will cheerfully accept being in the minority. However, your edits undoubtedly introduced factual errors and moved the article away from its sourcing; this, rather than any sense of entitlement or ownership, seems to be behind some of the irritation expressed elsewhere. I apologise if I came (or come) across as less-than-polite or grumpy; it has been a long day and I was not especially wanting to have to get involved in this tonight. I won't be offended if you jump back into the article, or politely or otherwise tell me to go forth and multiply! Sarastro (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your candid response. Again, I regret these wording changes introduced unintentional errors. I sincerely hope you do not find any more. This is why the "primary" editor is notified pre-TFA to ensure these instances, if they happen, are caught. Obviously errors of fact are most important. So is grammar/phrasing/flow when the idea of TFA is to present the "best" articles WP has to offer. This is why I (and others) volunteer to go over the articles beforehand. Most of the edits I made to this article were adding missing WP links, punctuation, adding captions etc... Some of my wording changes were an attempt to make the article a cohesive read. Please understand our sole aim is to improve the encyclopedia, not cause annoyance. Regards Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Mail
Hi. I don't monitor my WP e-mail account, so if you reply to my mails, just drop me a line on-wiki to notify me. Cheers. Factotem (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Duleepsinhji
If by any chance you're looking for another cricket biography to improve, could I suggest that of Duleepsinhji. I happened to have cause to look at it today, and it currently is sadly inadequate for such an important figure. JH (talk page) 20:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really have much on Duleep. There's bits in Ranji's biography (and I really must get back to Ranji one day, if I can find the time and enthusiasm), but I don't have the biography of Duleep that came out a few years ago. I can't say I've ever found him as interesting as his uncle, and he seems to have been a rather unhappy chap... mainly because of his uncle, to be fair. Although David Foot's biography of Hammond seems to imply that Duleep had syphilis on top of everything else... I'm not sure how reliable that is, and is probably based on his usual gossipy chats with 1930s Gloucestershire players. Plus, it doesn't name him so couldn't be used even if we were so inclined. (And don't get me started on Foot being a little loose with facts and evidence...) Sarastro (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I knew that Hammond was supposed to have had syphilis, but had only known about Duleep's TB. I think it was supposed to be TB, but my memory could be at fault. I'd definitely never heard anything about syphilis, though. Whatever it was, the attack that ended his cricket seems to have been very sudden. I haven't read the biography either, and only know what I've read about him from Cardus and Thomson. I think it was Thomson who wrote that if Duleep had only remained fit for another month until the end of the 1932 season, then Sussex might well have won the Championship that year. JH (talk page) 22:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really believe that it was anything other than TB. The poor chap had a lung removed. That Hammond biography is a very strange book. Poor Duleep though... if he HAD remained fit for another month, he might well have died because he'd almost certainly have gone to Australia undiagnosed. Sarastro (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

An example
Sarastro1, Here is one example. Sorry for the longish quotes, but they are important for understanding the context in which the sources say what they say. Please bear with me this one time.

Example A: "Late in the day of 11 February, up to 2,000 people from the countryside came in the western gate of the town to join the townsfolk, waving a black banner and crying: "Havac! Havoc! Smyt fast, give gode knocks!" cited to Morris (2001, p 54) and Jeaffreson (1871, p 232), with note: "The use of "Havoc" was possibly the earliest in English. cited to Hall (1983, p 56)"
 * Explanation:
 * 1) Morris (1983, p 54) has: "thousands of wild country folk came screaming in, thronged and hooded, carrying a black flag and crying: 'Havac! Havoc! Smyt fast, give gode knocks!' If we are to credit the old chronicles, these unnerving yokels plundered the students' hostels, scalped a number of chaplains, attracts a procession of friars, buried several scholars in dung-hills and virtually depopulated the University." (see here)
 * 2) Jeaffreson (p 232) has: But before the disappearance of daylight the contest was decided by the villagers, who, having entered the city by the West Gate in a compact mass,  numbering (if the chroniclers may be trusted) nearly two thousand, hastened towards the scene of strife with an uproar of ferocious cries and threats.  'Slay, slay,' 'Havock  and havock,'  'Smite fast and give good knocks,' were amongst the exclamations with which the rural folk encouraged one another as they moved at double-quick up the High Street in rear of the 'black dismal flag,' which was their only and terrifying banner.(see here)
 * 3) Hall(1983, p56) says, "At that time the farmers and artisans outside of Oxford, their work over for the day, broke through the gates shouting "Slay, slay, havoc, havoc," introducing a new word, havoc, into the English language. The clerks, unconcerned with the history of the language, tried to free themselves from the convulsive paroxysm in the narrow streets. Friars from the various abbeys tried to bring peace by thrusting the crucifix between battering combatants, crying out "Pax vobiscum! Pax vobiscum ("Peace be with you"). They were driven back to their monasteries by the blows of both sides."
 * Analysis: 1) Morris has the black flag, the hooded yokels numbering the thousands and "'Havac! Havoc! Smyt fast, give gode knocks!" and caveating for the quality of the source  2) Jeaffreson has two thousand, "Slay, slay, 'Havoc and havock, 'Smite fast and give good knocks," and the black dismal flag. and similar caveating about the reliability of the source 3) Hall has, "Slay, slay, havoc, havoc" and the bit about the new word "Havoc," (in its form as an interjection, I might add, meaning "Devastate!" or "Destroy!"
 * Both the OED and Websters Unabridged say the earliest attested usage in English for havoc is in 1419 (OED) and 15th century (Webster's). But the riot took place in 1355.
 * Conclusion: The sentence A has "2000" (found 2, but not in), "western gate" (also in 2, but not in 1), "hooded"  (in 1, but not in 2), "Havac, Havoc, Smyt fast, give gode knocks!" (in 1 but not in that phrasing or order in 2, or 3; Aside: This is a late Middle English cry rendered by an antiquarian of the late Restoration period for those are what we have, and described in a modern source.  Who was recording this in that spelling? They were spoken words after all.)  Then we have the footnote which says "possibly the earliest in English.  But 3) says it was the earliest, and the OED says it wasn't!  Can we write such a sentence in a tertiary source?  I think not.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * PS Hall I might add is attempting to write a popular book, just before the barroom brawl brakes out, he also says, "Some of the customers at the tavern rolled dice, others played chess. Young Oxford girls sometimes served the ale and at intervals vanished upstairs with a customer to console him if he lost his money at dice or at chess (of course, she made certain he had at least a few groats left)." Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply:, OK I think I see what you're getting at. I'll say straight away that I don't think I agree with you, and I'd say this looks like acceptable use of sources, but I understand your viewpoint. Just to be clear, how would you put this information together? How would you write it? Or would you say it is impossible? I think if I saw how you'd write it, it might help me understand you even better.

Regarding the original use of havoc, I take your point. My inclination would be, in the footnote, to say "according to Hall, blah blah earliest use". And if I were writing it, I might then say that the OED gives a different date of origin. But I don't think the earth will spin off its axis if neither of these things are done.

I've no real problem with Hall being populist, as long as he is making sense and is respectable and reliable. That doesn't make him unsuitable to use; I've used many such books (which I will admit made my teeth clench as I read them, but which were still useful).

I would just make three points here. First, I think your view of sourcing differs from that of most people. I would say you're in a distinct minority, but I may be wrong. Second, doing this as you are doing it, I think it is inevitable that you may find the occasional cloudy area (I do something similar to what you do when I review, but with a caveat I'll come to shortly) and it is a case, in my view, of being too over-demanding. If you go looking for problems, you will find problems; other people may not see it the same way, and in fact they may not be actual problems at all... perhaps it's more a case of a reviewer finds what they want to find. Third, I'm sure it's not your intention, but it does seem like you are hunting down SchroCat and attempting to find fault in his articles. It is making for a somewhat tense atmosphere, which I'm not sure helps anyone and does not improve any articles (and makes for long, messy FACs). From my experience, he is a bloody good writer, and knows his way around sources. Spending time checking his use of sources does not seem like a constructive use of anyone's time. I've also always found that if ever something is missing from his articles, he is always willing to find what is needed. And this comes back to my point about doing similar reviews to you: I tend to focus on new nominators or those who have not been around FAC much. I've found a couple recently which have had huge issues with sourcing. I wonder would you be better focussing more on these? It might create a little more goodwill. And there are certainly other articles out there that need the kind of forensic examination that you bring to a review.

I'm happy to continue discussing any of this, and feel free to ignore anything I've said, cheerfully or otherwise. But I think this is certainly a discussion better held away from the FAC page for now. Sarastro (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest both of you read my comment on the FAC, where I approach the subject of sources from a historian's (and source reviewer's) viewpoint. In short, I deplore relying on pre-20th-century and newspaper articles for a historical event. And the view that the sources from the 18th and 19th century aren't primary is not necessarily correct - they may not be primary but they probably aren't what we'd consider excellent secondary sources either. And given the subject matter Hall is covering, if there are bad reviews (and it sure looks like F&F uncovered one at least), then we should probably use the scholarly works that cover Wycliffe, not a popular history. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'll reply here to avoid another digression on the FAC page. I suspect this is a conversation best held in a more public place as it seems rather important and would apply to more than just this FAC. I'll say straight away that I have not read the article too closely (and I'm already regretting becoming involved in it). With a historian's hat on, I'd 100% agree with you for "Big History" where opinions and fashions change. My particular joy is sub-Roman Britain and the "Coming of the Saxons" (or possible "Not-Coming of the Saxons") which would be the textbook example of how 19th century (and around three-quarters of the 20th century) history books should be avoided, and bells rung while someone shouts "unclean". But the kind of article that we're discussing here is not something that has had the same amount of analysis and rethinking. If (and stressing again, I've not looked at all carefully) the old books are simply relating what is in the original source, and no-one has had a rethink about what that means... would that not be acceptable? Especially if there is nothing in the newer works that contradicts it? For something like this, which is a bit of a curious historical backwater, there won't be 3,000 articles discussing the possible dates it might have occurred (And I'm asking in an abstract sense, rather than worrying too much about this particular case). Finally, I completely agree about primary sources not always being from the period in question. However, in this case, the earliest source is 1792 (used 8 times), 437 years after the events. I think describing this as primary would be a stretch. But (to repeat myself, which I've probably done a lot anyway), I have not looked into this closely enough to have any strong opinions on this particular case. Sarastro (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't dug deeply into the exact article either. It's not my area of study - frankly I don't pay much attention to things past about the accension of Henry III, and my main interest is really the 11th and 12th-century in England, so I'm not as familiar with the sources that would be involved here, but I am VERY familiar with the abuse of the period by Victorian family historians - and how the Victorian (and earlier) historians need to be very much viewed very very carefully. You can't always know when one of them is distorting things without actually going into the sources and comparing things. I fear that too many editors on wikipedia think that "history is easy" and "I can do this, even if I've never had any training in history, because how hard can it be?". This is why I avoid using ANY primary sources in my historical articles, and I do not use anything before about 1900 (unless I KNOW it's safe - which generally means J. Round and some Freeman). And *I* am trained on this .. I studied the Anglo-Norman period in both undergraduate and graduate level classses under a medievalist who specialized in the period. It's way to easy for me to see how folks can easily mess up ... hell, *I* can mess up in periods outside my competence. I fear too many folks are edging into "writing history" rather than "writing an encyclopedia". I think we do a disservice to other editors when we don't take concerns about the age of sources seriously. And we certainly do a disservice to our readers when we don't base our articles on the best sources. If that means we don't cover some stuff some guy in 1842 or so covered, so be it. There's a reason history has moved ON from that sort of history writing... we shouldn't be repeating it. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Aftermath FAC
Hey, just a friendly reminder about the nomination you left a review at, if you can offer anything more or conclude it, before the nomination gets stale. Thank you. isento (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Brian Close
I know that you're not really around here much these days, and you're probably not after a project. But... just in case you are interested, I'm starting to work over the Brian Close article. Initially, I'm aiming to run through sourcing what is there, trimming out the rubbish and finding sources for what looks okay, and then see where it leaves me. I have the biography, Cricket's Lionheart, and I have plenty of Somerset histories, but I am lacking on the Yorkshire side of things, which is obviously a hefty bulk of his career. No worries if you aren't interested, but if you fancy a look in, anything help would be greatly appreciated. Harrias talk 22:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest, I thought I didn't know that much about Close. But when I started thinking about it, I do have quite a lot on his Yorkshire career. Probably more than enough to be honest. All I'm really missing is detail about his sacking, but I could probably cobble something together as it's hardly lacking coverage! I can't promise anything, but let me know when you are thinking of starting and I'll try to cobble something together. Sarastro (talk) 07:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've already started going through what's there. I'm working on the article live, rather than in a sandbox elsewhere. Feel free to just jump in with anything if you've got the time and inclination. Harrias  talk 11:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)