User talk:Steve/Archive 7

American Beauty
Nice job with the "Cinematography" section! I was thinking that for citing American Cinematographer, it may be a better practice to have them as references in a "Bibliography" section and page citations in the "References" section. This is done at Apt Pupil (film), and I see you've been doing this for the "Themes" section on your sub-page. My impression is that doing this is ideal for multi-page references for better breakdown for more immediate verifiability. — Erik (talk • contrib) 17:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, in looking at the awards page for American Beauty, I think we may want to explore having a sub-article List of American Beauty awards and honors like Little Miss Sunshine has one. If we're aiming to be comprehensive, the table might be a bit overwhelming, even if we "hide" it.  What do you think?  Also, what's your opinion on the music sub-articles?  Judging from the citations available, there seem to be enough music-focused articles to permit them.  We could try to shape "Music" to focus mostly on the musical score as it relates to the film and keep the soundtrack focus minimized unless we find specific reasons for songs being used in the film. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 18:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's what I was eventually planning for the format of the references; the harvnb template seems pretty straightforward. On this, can you clarify the page numbers for those American Cinematographer cites? The "Impeccable Images" one, for instance, states 74–109, yet there are only eleven pages (might be down to adverts, I guess), while the other says something daft like 80–2. If you've found enough sources to justify those music articles, that's fair enough; I concur with the thought that we keep the content in the main article down to the score's integration, etc. Steve  T • C 21:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I cannot help with page numbers right now since the articles were not available in scanned form. I can visit my university library tomorrow (just have a final project to finish up tonight) to look up the page numbers and to Xerox some other stuff before I move out of town.  (FYI, I Xeroxed American Beauty chapters from three books and checked out two.)  80–2 means 80–82, basically.  For the music sub-articles, I have not read any actual articles, but if you look at the citation listings I shared, there are quite a few music-focused articles (not to mention the awards it won).  That's why I was thinking they're fine as separate articles.  We don't really have a best practice for how to bridge film articles and their music sub-articles.  May as well start now! :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) 21:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I started incorporating some information from a book on hand, but the harvnb template won't work since the book does not have an author. (It's an interview with Sam Mendes about his first film.)  Any way we can reformat it to be manual?  I doubt we'd run into this problem again with the other books and academic publications. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 00:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * After a bit of cocking about, I realised in the end that it was all down to the use of spaces between the parameters; fortunately, the template does recognise the editor parameter. Steve  T • C 10:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for figuring it out! I have some casting information to add...  do you think that details about filming's start and end (temporarily under "Casting") could go anywhere in "Filming"?  I don't think we need to mix these details here since there should be enough for a fairly separate "Casting" section. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 15:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

← FYI, I Xeroxed a few chapters covering American Beauty that I can't make available online like the other resources I shared. (Did it manually before later coming up with the genius idea of scanning into PDFs). I was not sure if you plan to keep "Themes" in your sandbox or move it to the article soon; I can implement these chapters on either page. As you might have seen, I'm pushing forward with Fight Club themes. I decided that a sub-article would be best due to the intense focus on that particular sub-topic and the extensive coverage yet to be added. I may "cheat" a little... expanding that particular thematic sub-article so it's a decent one for its kind then having a "Themes" summary section at the film article. I think that way, I can focus on improving the overall article for the FAC process. A couple of questions about that... how should I work in the filmmakers' themes? I was thinking to merge the content into the "Production" section somehow; into the other themes is also a possibility, but it feels like the analysis transcends what the filmmakers intended. (You should see this piece by Henry Giroux about Fight Club's failure as social commentary.) The other is, how to title the themes sub-article? Themes in Fight Club seemed okay to me as long as there as no disambiguation, especially with a hatnote pointing to the book's themes—think this is enough? Also, do some talk page archiving! :) — Erik (talk • contrib) 13:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To be honest, the start I've made on the sandboxed American Beauty themes section is far from inclusion-ready. Quite apart from one colossal BLP violation I need to remember to delete, it only really includes information from a couple of sources, so would probably weight the section too far in favour of those analyses to be representative. I'd like to have more in place on the "rebellion against conformity" angle, and at least a rough overview, before transferring it over. I've read most of those sources now, and I've got a rough sketch in my head of how to present it; I'll likely get around to writing more after I've caught up on a couple more FAC reviews. For Fight Club, personally I'd likely keep the themes in close proximity, both intended and unintended, and keep the production section free of that unless a specific intent informed the design, lighting scheme or other practical considerations in a scene. If you feel the third party analysis transcends filmmaker intent, there's no bar to subsectioning to keep them apart, or if they touch on enough common points to not make it seem tenuous, it may even be possible to intertwine the contrasting analyses to emphasize the differences. Concur with the choice of article name; in the end, if it's deemed inappropriate—or if you think of a better one—it can always be moved. Steve  T • C 14:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we have the nucleus of a good "Themes" section now. I've reworded the potentially "colossal BLP violation", but do you think it's still a little strong? The sentence now reads, "Ball rewrote the character several times, each time delaying the revelation of his homosexuality, a possible expression of Ball's own incest fantasies." Maybe full attribution would soften it further? Steve  T • C 11:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yikes, that's the BLP violation, eh? I'd definitely put in full attribution here, something like: "...of his homosexuality, which suggests is a possible expression..."  Quite a thing to say when the screenwriter's still alive and kicking. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 12:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, definitely. I wouldn't want to be Mike Godwin when he got the call from Ball's lawyers about how we said Ball wanted to shag his own dad. :) Will reword accordingly. Steve  T • C 12:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice addition! If you want some screencaps for the film, check this out. — Erik (talk • contrib) 15:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Though it's looking increasingly likely that we'll have to spin off a "Themes" sub-article by the time it's !finished. And thanks for the link. There are some likely candidates in there, though I'm going to hold off adding any until the article is more developed; I don't want to limit our options down the road. Steve  T • C 17:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Tender Mercies
Hey, it's Hunter Kahn, from the Tender Mercies FAC. As per some of the discussion there, I've started a Themes and Analyses section. As I said in the FAC, it's right now heavily dependent on one source and I am going to work on adding more, but I was hoping you could take a look at what's there now and let me provide me some feedback as to whether this is the correct direction I should be heading in. Thank you! —  Hunter  Kahn  ( contribs )  18:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Replied. Steve  T • C 21:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Fight Club
Figured it may be good to have a separate thread about Fight Club since we have somewhat separate discussions for American Beauty. I've been working on User:Erik/Themes in Fight Club, and I'm confident that my structural approach was the best decision. No complete "Themes" section would have fit on the film article. (It may just push the limits of the sub-article; depends on how much the masculinity coverage overlaps.) I pulled "Filmmakers' themes" from Fight Club (film) to be "social commentary"; will replace that original section with a summary section. Any chance you can take a gander at my work and provide some light feedback? I don't plan to give this sub-article a Featured Article flow, but I want to provide enough substance that can make sense to the readership. That way, it's a sub-article with a backbone. (If you want any return feedback for anything, I'd be happy to do so!) — Erik (talk • contrib) 04:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like we do have some overlap with the societal emasculation angle of both films. :) Great work so far! I didn't realise you'd done so much, as I hadn't watchlisted the page until now. I note that you've embraced the idea that attribution isn't wholly necessary in the text when citing independent sources, but I like that you have indicated when an interpretation is that of the filmmakers and actors (as I said to Hunter Khan at the Tender Mercies FAC, a film's meaning is derived from its audience, with each interpretation as valid as the next; all that matters for our purposes is that the interpretation comes from a reliable source). Is there any reason you've gone back to full attribution in the "Failure as commentary" section? Is it because rather than a straight analysis, Giroux & Szeman also offer overt criticism of the way in which the film tackles these themes? Similarly in the "Fascism" section, I'm not 100% sure Dassanowsky needs mention in the text. The only reason I included Samuel Blumenfeld and Prairie Miller's names in Changelings "Themes" section was in response to specific concerns that their opinions placed undue weight on an interpretation (I still disagree!). From a stylistic point of view, it's very well written so far, slightly more so than the sections you've included at Apt Pupil, if only because the integration of direct quotes is smoother—though there are probably a few instances in the later sections that could be paraphrased. One last point, the examples of "slumming dramas" and "trauma" films feel a little out of place, almost outside the scope of the article. I assume they're presented to give the reader an idea of what the terms actually mean, and as such might benefit from closer integration with the surrounding text (e.g. "...slumming dramas such as...") But yeah, really nice so far; it makes my own efforts seem anaemic in comparison. :) Steve'  T • C 08:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I used full attribution in the "Failure as commentary" subsection because I felt it was a response to what the director and the actors claimed for their film. The topic seemed more direct than the other topics.  I also used full attribution in some other cases because there were essentially whole sentences that I couldn't paraphrase, and I didn't want paragraphs of quoted fragments, especially long ones that could just be converted.  It isn't set up to strengthen the case of the claim but rather to provide some variation.  Do you think there's another way to go about it?  As for "slumming trauma", I felt that some setup was necessary because the mentioned genres don't have articles, and judging from Google Searches, aren't the kind of genres to have them.  I'll try to see how I can integrate them closer. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 12:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As we're just getting to grips with different citing methods, this discussion might interest you; I'd been wondering myself about the best way of presenting references. Perhaps this method would be a workable solution. Steve  T • C 20:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * With Fight Club, I have not found anything that would not fall in the "Notes" section instead of the "Bibliography" section under "References". All I've run down so far has been substantial enough to warrant inclusion in the bibliography.  I always put multi-page print resources in the bibliography, though it is a good thought about multi-page online resources (like VFXWorld, for instance).  I've also only dug out a couple of bits from a single article that have some interesting information but nothing too useful to include; usually have treated those as notes.  What's your call? — Erik  (talk • contrib) 20:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I must admit, I do find it very odd when I see single-use full references in the "Notes" section alongside Harvard-style cites that point to everything else in the "Bibliography" or "References" section. I was going to rejig AB to eliminate this, but got sidetracked when the harvnb template wouldn't work (hint: don't insert  when using the   parameter). Now that's sorted out, I might sandbox a version of the article tomorrow, see how it looks. It's not a big deal, but Ling.Nut has a point about readers' potentially finding it misleading/unusual.  Steve  T • C 22:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure if I follow. Are you talking about any full reference in the "Notes" section?  Should the Variety citations, for example, be placed in "Bibliography" instead and only the author/year in "Notes"?  Feels like there should be a line drawn somewhere, though I'm not sure where.  (I had some fun with Harvnb as well on my sub-page; had to find out that   doesn't work for references with multiple authors and that   and   were key.) — Erik  (talk • contrib) 03:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah. It's not so bad with the articles we've been working on, as there are enough single-use citations, but take a look at 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash, which I find downright odd (though perfectly within guidelines); lots of Harvard citing, then the odd single-use reference splashed here and there. I'd much prefer to see everything in the "References" section, with a consistent format for the notes. Total segregation is much neater. Steve  T • C 07:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No idea in which talk section to put this, but it relates to the citing issue, so here's as good as anywhere. How do we think this looks? Steve  T • C 12:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not very sold on this idea, especially seeing the "Groves 2000x" notes. It looks like a "References" section without any "Bibliography" section, just with the beneficial supplement of multi-page references being drilled down by page number.  I'm not sure if it's worth the total segregation to execute that kind of layout.  For example, Fight Club (film) has page numbers cited in the "Notes" section, but we don't really make it out because they're swallowed up by one-shot references.  When it becomes the other way, with cited page numbers being the majority of the notes, it looks stranger, but honestly, that's the nature of the process.  Total segregation can offer cleaner presentation, but it makes references extremely redundant, especially with the Groves citations.  You have to hop twice to find the Variety article that backs the box office figures, where there could be just one hop for immediate heads-up.  Wikipedia articles are different from other sources because we're weaving in many, many different sources and backing up every single sentence.  Sometimes it looks like Bone Wars, and sometimes it looks like Changeling.  I imagine other sources practice some lenience since even as they reference someone, they extrapolate a conclusion or an argument in doing so.  Ultimately, presentations like David's may not look "even", but the presentations are of minimal consequence to the readership; the rest of the article is much more important.  I think a workaround like the one for American Beauty comes off as a little forced where the previous approach was not detrimental and has less overall tracking involved. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 16:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I was originally thinking that as we added more multi-use book and journal sources, it'd be better, as they would start to outweigh Groves etc. I also had an idea about how to consolidate those, so Groves only appeared once or twice in the bibliography, but without web links it makes verifiability more muddled. I'll revert for now, and perhaps play around with different presentation methods while I mull over which journal article to implement next. Cheers, Steve  T • C 20:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism
Hi Steve, I appreciate that you have taken the time to come have a look at the article. I have addressed your concerns. I hope you are inclined to review the entire article as I look forward to your comments on the rest of the page. I personally do not feel that the problems in the lead were indicative of others that might exist elsewhere. The lead was created by a few editors (myself included) which resulted in a mish-mash of styles that obviously did not work. I am glad you pointed this out to us, your tone was not harsh, just honest. Thanks.  Nancy Heise    talk  01:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the gracious reply; I'll revisit the article in the next day or two, when I've finished scaling the giant wall o' text for Star Trek: The Motion Pictures FAC. All the best, Steve'  T • C 07:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

User:TriiipleThreat/Thor (film)
Just letting you know I started the sandbox, feel free to contribute if you have anything to add. Thanks again, TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hey User:Steve,

I have a question.

I recently was able to get the help with some user's to get a Good article nomination for The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie, and am wondering if you could take a look at the article and make a judgement if it is ready to be nominated for Featured article candidates.

Thanx!

ATC. Talk 02:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a couple of Wiki things I need to get done this weekend, but during the next week I'll take a more in-depth look at the article and make some comments/suggestions; hopefully, that'll give you a better idea to its suitability for FAC. All the best, Steve  T • C 19:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanx! I appreciate it. ATC . Talk 00:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied elsewhere. Steve  T • C 13:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey Steve,


 * I was wondering if you could help me with Reception.


 * Here is a reliable source I found


 * Also, when it says it gave "Nickelodeon's highest-rated premiere in seven years".


 * I don't know if it means if the premiere of The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie&mdash;the series' pilot episode or if it is referring to the first and second episode that both premiered one after the other on the same day: VMA's and Wolff Brothers Cry Wolf.


 * Thanx!


 * ATC . Talk 21:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that seems to have been for the back-to-back opening episodes, rather than the movie, as this article reveals:"The show recently gave Nickelodeon its highest-rated premiere in the past seven years, drawing 4.7 million total viewers for its back-to-back episodes on Feb. 3, notes Zap2it.com. Both telecasts took the top spot in their respective time periods against all of television among young children and 'tweens."No promises on success, but I'll have a trawl to see what I can uncover for the movie. Steve  T • C 22:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanx! and if I'm able to do your other requests and [if] not this one, do you think it has at chance as FAC?


 * Thanx again!
 * ATC . Talk 20:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. I've spent the last hour trawling news and indexing sites, and the viewing figures just doesn't seem to be anywhere online that I can see. It may even be that the coverage simply doesn't exist to make a truly comprehensive article on what was—being honest—a low visibility film aimed at children. Whether it would be truly comprehensive without some of the information that we recommend is a question I can't answer. It's a topic that FAC regulars have struggled with for a while now. It usually relates to older subjects, but there hasn't yet been a firm consensus on the issue of incomplete articles that nonetheless have mined all the published reliable material. You might find the discussions on this page and the subsequent archive pages useful. In the meantime, I'll carry on looking for sources and see what else I can do to help. And thanks for the kudos! (Though you should probably note that neither Erik or I are admins.) Steve  T • C 22:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your welcome, and thanx!


 * ATC . Talk 23:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This made me smile
Your knowing "where David lives" made me smile Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Star_Trek:_The_Motion_Picture/archive1, and so you have earned this:


 * Hey, thanks. I thought the comment... appropriate. :) Steve  T • C 21:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And in that spirit...

WikiProject Films May 2009 Newsletter
The May 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
For going through the Ten Commandments article! I examined all your edits - they are fine, actually better than fine. I really appreciate your help.  Nancy Heise    talk  23:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and no problem! I should have finished looking over the remaining sections by the end of the weekend; while I've got a couple of questions content-wise, as far as I can see it should be nothing to worry about. I'll comment at the FAC page when I'm done. All the best, Steve  T • C 07:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  Nancy Heise    talk  18:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

External link
Sorry for external link. I change it. If you have bot please remove link from all my signatures. Best wishes, --Vojvodae 19:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Film at FAR
Steve, do you have time for Featured article review/Kung Fu Hustle? (Does Erik watch your page?) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. No problem, I can take a look, though it will be tomorrow before I can cast more than a quick glance. Erik does watch this page, but he's on vacation so probably won't be able to comment at the FAR unless he happens to check in before he leaves... Oh. I just looked at the FAR page and this may well be, at least partially, my fault ("As for FAC, standards have risen in the last year or so, and I feel confident that any article that didn't include details of the critical response from the film's home country would have that concern raised.") Whoops. Steve  T • C 19:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Steve.  I don't think there's any hurry (that is, I don't imagine YM will KEEP it without those issues being corrected).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor edit

 * Since, I added more information to the "Release and debuts" section for The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie, it's run on sentences, so I was wondering if you could fix some minor edits.


 * Thanx!


 * ATC . Talk 00:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem; I'll take a look when I'm finished at the Ten Commandments FAC. All the best, Steve  T • C 17:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanx!


 * ATC . Talk 23:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your recent edits to the article, I am wondering instead of saying "In the film, the brothers..." to "The film's premise is about Nat and Alex...".


 * Also, I think the "Releases and debuts" section is too short, but their is no more information to put, and I wanted to know if you could spot any other references that doesn't source everything that is in the sentences.


 * I hope I could nominate it for featured article class soon, although their is no reception from online sources, is the problem.


 * ATC . Talk 19:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I found ratings and reviews on Commonsense Media, I don't know if it'll do for "Reception", but its the best I could find.


 * Thanx!


 * ATC . Talk 20:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You are a genius

 * Oh, hey! It was nothing; it was already in pretty good shape. My edits were mostly clarifications for those unfamiliar with the subject. But thanks! Steve  T • C 17:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I have supported this article's featured article candidacy. I'm sure it's clear that it's not because of the barnstar and effusive praise (very gratefully received!) sent my way by the nominator, and that I wouldn't have spent so much time tweaking the prose of an article I thought wasn't likely to have its outstanding issues resolved during the usual FAC timeframe. Steve T • C 09:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Minas Geraes
Hi Steve. I have renominated BRAZILIAN BATTLESHIP Minas Geraes at FAC again here. Could you take a look at it like you did the first time around? Many thanks and cheers, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  03:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure thing! I'll pop in to the FAC closer to the weekend. Steve  T • C 07:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  21:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

SECR N class
Steve, thanks for taking the time to review this article. It needs as much outside input on prose as possible, and as one of the editors, this has been nigh-on impossible as my work tends to focus on the factual content. So once again, thank you! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! It's an interesting article, and content-wise, I haven't seen anything so far that would be a bar to its eventual promotion. I'll let you know my thoughts on the FAC page when I'm done. All the best, Steve  T • C 09:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on the FAC page, they are most helpful. There are a couple more things I need to do, but when I and a few other editors have finished them, would it be alright if I ask you to take another look to find any other areas of improvement? The thing about the Background section is that it is needed, as it goes some way to answering the questions "Why bother building them in the first place?" and "Who cares anyway?"

I've taken what you have noted on board as regards this section (that is not to say that I haven't taken anything else on board either!), and I think its now more to the point. Other editors have also been working on improving the thorny issues of prose, and hopefully they will lick the article into shape in the near future. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've no problem revisiting; I'll take another look at it tonight and strike those issues you've resolved. As for "Background", the new version looks a lot more relevant. Nice work. All the best, Steve  T • C 11:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article for a second time. One thing I'm not too hot on is what is meant by "prose" in this context. The problem with technical articles is that it is near impossible to create a flowing piece of uncomplicated work due to its very technical nature (as you probably know already, and can see by the difficulties experienced with this article). Would it be possible for you to highlight areas in general terms where the prose needs to be looked at without watering down the content? This is the one complaint I have against the issue of prose that has been highlighted time and again of late (its more a problem with the rigidity of section 1a of the FAC guidelines than with the editors, who in all fairness, and despite my sniping, are only doing their job).

It is always easy to miss certain grammatical issues when writing and editing an article, and I can say without doubt that I am no longer in a position to be objective in finding the remaining problems. However, I hope to clarify this with the other editors involved soon, but more guidance from a fresh pair of eyes in this respect would be of great help. Best regards, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm about to turn in for the night, but before I go, the one piece of advice I almost always end up giving at a FAC where prose has become an issue is for the nominator to read this excellent guide to eliminating redundant wording. 90% of prose issues I come across—in otherwise well-written articles—are down to the use of unnecessary words and phrases in sentences where the intended meaning has already been conveyed. It only serves to bog the reader down instead of propelling them along. As an example, I'll choose one sentence at random in the heavily-edited "Background" section:"The operational restrictions imposed by the track condition meant that the SECR was unable to follow a coherent locomotive strategy that reduced costs and increased the serviceability of the locomotive fleet."You'll find in this sentence that a lot of fat can be cut without selling its ideas short:"The These operational restrictions imposed by the track condition meant that the SECR was unable to follow a coherent locomotive strategy that reduced costs and increased the serviceability of the locomotive fleet."So we're left with:"These restrictions meant that the SECR was unable to follow a coherent locomotive strategy that reduced costs and increased serviceability."On its own, the sentence might need some of material I've cut, but in the wider context of the "Background" section, most of it can remain implicit without losing any of the intended meaning or introducing any subject ambiguities. That's just a quick example, and I'm sure others could recast that sentence to be even more concise, but I hope this helps. I'll pop back in to the FAC in a day or two, see how it's going. All the best, Steve  T • C 00:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You're the first person to give me a straight answer regarding what is wrong with the prose, as everyone seems to refer to the article mentioned above, which from a personal standpoint, I'm not all that keen on. So I'll be on the lookout for other examples of redundancy from now on. Once again, thank you! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your continuing involvement with this. I think between us BP and myself have just about exhausted our reviewing, without further external input. (Typically, I review the text and find some missing fact, or an unanswered 'why?', BP researches and adds the answers, I then review his English, and so it goes on!) We've both been through it a couple of times now, and you'll see that quite a lot has changed - several paragraphs have been moved to improve the chronology, for example. It may be that some 'fluff' has crept back in, but that's partly my style, and I think it reads nicely at the moment. The recent activity was (hopefully) a final push on my part -- it'll be great to get on to some different work! Cheers. EdJogg (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

As EdJogg has stated above, we have finished our current round of editing, so you may continue your review to ascertain where further improvement is required. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Odd coincidence, I was literally seconds away from hitting "save" on your talk page. What I was going to say there was that real world responsibilities have unexpectedly conspired to keep me from revisiting. When I've finished slamming the wasps from the pure apple of truth, I'll be able to take a better look; definitely before pr/ar day at the weekend. Steve  T • C 08:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Steve. I've seen your latest changes. All seems well. I have taken the liberty of starting a talk page section to discuss the problematic "Design and Construction" paragraph. I have drafted a possible revision if you care to take a look. Cheers.
 * EdJogg (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Spotted it and replied! I have the article watchlisted now, so should see any new talk page discussions. Cheers, Steve  T • C 15:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll be off for a week's holiday this weekend, and have asked EdJogg to take over the FAC until next Sunday. I've made some changes to the errant paragraph, and hope they have improved it. I have included your take on what the paragraph was saying as it was spot-on, although I wasn't sure about including the colon (it looked out of place for me). Anyway, I have until Friday, so will continue to have a peep now and again until then. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 'ere, I hadn't spotted that colon! (Must've been reading too quickly!) These are two sentences that have been crudely welded together, and (re-)adding the colon -- in place of 'in' -- helps to break up what is a rather long sentence. It also avoids the phrase 'in the shape of' which can be used in a more vague sense than it is here, where we really are talking about the shape of the cab!
 * The three examples are now tightly tied to the word 'influences', something that wasn't possible when I first started hacking this paragraph about. -- EdJogg (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've had a go at that snakey sentence (see history). I've lost the 'exhaust arrangements', since I don't know how that would have changed with the work done. I've left the two sentences connected by a colon as the steam pipe changes were related to the cylinder changes, and this one-to-one relationship is lost if the colon is replaced by a full-stop. The words 'steam pipes' are repeated intentionally -- under normal circumstances 'steam' could be lost from the second occurrence, but the words are very nearly hyphenated here. The down-side of my re-wording is the slight implication that the reconditioning of the frames was only the fitting of the steam pipes: this may well have been the case, but BP would have to confirm this! Does my re-write go some way to alleviate the issues? -- EdJogg (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, that looks better. I'd be tempted to replace the colon with a semi- and lose "an adjustment to"; "in the steam circuit" presents the same information because the sentence then goes on tell us about the adjustment. As you say, BP might want to give it the once over to make sure the meaning hasn't altered away from the intent. Steve  T • C 13:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you. It took me a long time to re-work that one and such complex changes often require a bit of batting-about before they take shape properly. Hopefully we're there now. EdJogg (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Raun Kaufman
Hi Steve, I was wondering if this picture of Raun Kaufman, is copyright infringement, and if not could you upload it to the Raun Kaufman article. Thanx! ATC. Talk 04:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, unfortunately, that image is highly likely to be under copyright, as it looks like a publicity still, rather than one taken and owned by that website. Steve  T • C 07:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation question
Steve, Sandy posted this note on the FAC. I was wondering what you thought about the punctuation situation in that sentence. I could break it into two sentences.  Nancy Heise    talk  20:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, I should not have bothered you about this trivial issue, I changed the sentences into two separate sentences to avoid punctuation difficulties.  Nancy Heise    talk  20:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie
Hey Steve,

Check out the awards and reception section—you'll probably be shocked. It has lots of information; check out the filming section too.

Does it need minor copy-editing?

What do you think about everything?

Thanx!

ATC. Talk 21:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Will take a look tomorrow. All the best, Steve  T • C 00:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanx! ATC . Talk 00:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder about The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie. ATC. Talk 16:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry, I got sidetracked. The section is looking good so far; the only thing I'd mention for now is the IMDb user rating; unfortunately, that isn't a reliable indicator of the public's appreciation of the film, as the rating is unregulated, and suffers from demographic skew and vote stacking. But nice work! Steve  T • C 17:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, I got rid of the Internet Movie Database information in the "Awards and Reception" section. Should I also get rid of the Commonsense Media information? Anything else, that you would recommend before nominating it for WP:FAC? Thanx! ATC . Talk 22:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you mind if I give it a few days before I take a look? My real world writing skills have been called upon in an unexpectedly major way, so it's going to be difficult to keep to my existing on-Wiki promises if I add any more right now. Steve  T • C 07:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

star
Steve, I would like to put a star on my user page to indicate Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism is a page I worked on but it would not be proper to do this unless you, Brianbolton and Richard have that same star on your user pages too. The article would never have passed FA without the combination of help it received from these people. Can you please add this star to your userpage at my request here? Let me know, thanks,  Nancy Heise    talk  22:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Here it is if you would like to put it on your userpage. Thanks again for your tremendous and outstanding work!

 Nancy Heise    talk  22:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's very, very generous of you, but you were architect and builder; I just cleared some stray bricks from the entrance. I haven't yet got around to finding room on my userpage for my own FA's star, but when I do I'll find some way of adding this one too (with some kind of "helper/janitor only" qualification). Thank you. Steve  T • C 11:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you (2)

 * I'm sure it would have been, but thank you regardless. All the best, Steve  T • C 11:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

FAR
hi Steve. Could you have a look at the one on Macedonia please?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No promises—I've got an outstanding FAC review to finish off and some article work to get done—but I'll try to make the time to take a look. Steve  T • C 14:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of NYScholar
Hello. You have previously commented on issues related to User:NYScholar. I have just proposed that NYScholar be community banned here. I am contacting you partly because your participation in the discussion would be welcome, but also because I have referred to your past comments, and want to give you the chance to ensure that I am not misconstruing them or using them out of context. Best, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. That's really quite dispiriting to see. I didn't interact with NYScholar after the incident alluded to in that thread, but occassionally stumbled across his/her contributions at other talk pages; everything seemed to be going well and the editor looked to have taken heed of the advice I, and many others, gave him/her, and which managed to avert a ban the last time. I don't know if NYScholar is being misrepresented or treated unfairly, but if the community hasn't come to a conclusion by the time (if) I get a spare hour tomorrow, I'll wade through that mess on the Pinter talk page to see if I can find something useful to say. Steve  T • C 00:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2009 Newsletter
The June 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

FAC withdraw
Thanx for helping withdraw! ATC. Talk 15:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)