User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 16

Could you take a look at an article if you get the chance?
Hey, I have been working with the people who have been editing Renewable energy commercialization and they are looking for someone to spruce up the article for an FA run. Your name came to the front of my mind. I know how busy you are (both IRL and in Wikilife), and I would understand if you decline, but if you get a chance, could you take a swipe at it? Thanks! --Jayron32| talk | contribs 01:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Awadewit, I'm the person behind the REC article. I'm not yet sure about the "FA run" idea, but you have come highly recommended, and if you have time to do a copyedit it would be most appreciated. Absolutely no rush; just if and when you have the time... regards, Johnfos 02:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have about 2-3 weeks for me to eventually make it through the article, I can do this. It is a valuable topic and I would be happy to help out. I often leave internal comments and questions as I am copy editing. These are best viewed using something like wikEd which color codes various types of edits. Awadewit | talk  03:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds fine. I guess the "internal comments and questions" are left so that someone else can follow up on these? Would be grateful if you could point me to a page which you have edited please... Johnfos 00:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix and Stanley Cup are the most recent. I don't really know anything about sports, so I can only do so much with those articles. But, if you go through the history, you can see the kinds of changes I made and the kinds of comments I left. If you want to see me copy editing myself, check out Joseph Priestley. :) Awadewit | talk  00:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

FL Main page proposal
You either nominated a WP:FLC or closed such a nomination recently. As such, you are the type of editor whose opinion I am soliciting. We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1 2007, voting starting December 1 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual content will resemble the current content at the featured content page. Such output would probably start at the bottom of the main page. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. Right now debate seems to be among support for the current selective democratic/consensus based proposal, a selective dictatorial approach like that used at WP:TFA or a non-selective first in line/calendar approach like that used at WP:POTD. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

reasonable FA
Cool! Someone used the barnstar I made. Congrats, Awadewit! – Scartol  ·  Talk  00:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My congratulations, too! :) Hoping that you're on the mend now, Willow 04:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/2007 Malaysian Grand Prix
Please register your support - or oppose - on the above link. Thanks, Davnel03 08:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, sure. Davnel03 17:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, MS
By the way, though I don't intend to address Mary Shelley till well after Christmas, could you recommend three or four basic, affordable books on her, for me to be going on with? The Miranda Seymour biography is apparently not perfect and not a literary biography, but reviewers seem to be cautiously positive about it. What do you think? My normal method with history articles or biographies is to work initially from about four books—the shortest academic one on the subject (because it will give ideas about what to omit), the most recently praised one (which will give me leads to the latest scholarship), the one regarded as the overall best, and an older standard one that has been superseded but may provide a counterweight to recent theories, which are often less sober. After using such texts to block in the article, I would then potter about, filling in and adjusting according to more particular aspects. For the literary aspect, I would use a larger variety of books, as at Chekhov or Shakespeare, according to what seems the best (or seminal) scholarship for each specialism (particular works, or whatever). In the short term, though, I'd just like to read a biography or two at my leisure, perhaps one on Mary and one on Percy. Is it correct that Bieri is the best for PBS (he is well reviewed but not a literary academic)? Too expensive, but both volumes are on Google Books.qp10qp 13:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds like an excellent plan. I have ordered the Cambridge Companion to Mary Shelley and am waiting for it to come in. I am hoping that it will list the definitive works, much like the Austen and Wollstonecraft CCs do. I myself can guess, but I would rather be sure. I won't have time to start reading for a while though. I still have to finish reading for Austen and a few other articles. I don't want to pile too much wiki-reading on top of my dissertation research. Awadewit | talk  17:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The CC is on Google Books, so I might check it out. I wasn't at all trying to prod you to do any reading yourself; I just don't want to be out of my depth when the time comes. I'm nervous about wasting time reading books that are considered inferior sources. Biographies are particularly difficult to decide on because often the best reviewed are among the worst for Wikipedia purposes. The dullest ones, like Park Honan's for Shakespeare, are often more thorough and reliable than the page-turning high-profile ones like Greenblatt's Will in the World or Ackroyd's Shakespeare: A Biography.qp10qp 19:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand completely. For the articles I've written so far, I haven't really had to choose. The choice was either obvious or there were no biographies. Shelley is in a way more high-profile than Wollstonecraft. These kinds of books are often helpful in determining the literary criticism to read:
 * Frankenstein Case Study
 * Longman Cultural Edition
 * I might buy one myself. By the way, do you want to split up the reading or should we both reading everything? Awadewit | talk  19:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is what Simmaren and I have been doing for our Jane Austen research. We split the reading in half and then put notes up for each other. Time intensive, yes. We'll see if it bears fruit in the end. Awadewit | talk  19:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Erk, time-intensive, definitely; you are heroes. I think, to save us both from torture, we might perhaps aim for a short, sharp article in MS's case, about 50 kb (just a suggestion; well, miracles are possible)? That would be a good mental exercise in itself. We will have to split the reading, I fear, if only because I don't have access to the library resources that you do. Mind you, it's amazing what's available on Google Books and Amazon Search Inside. I've been roughly pasting some lists  here, to get a feel for the territory. Check out my Amazon Search Inside and Google Books lists! I know how to read almost any page of those (I don't feel guilty about taking the bread from scholars' mouths, as I spend so much on books). I'll keep you informed about what I decide to read, which will only be a couple of big books before Christmas, I expect. I'm definitely going to read Claire Clairmont and the Shelleys, 1798-1879 by Robert Gittings and Jo Manton (1992), if only for my own pleasure. I read Gittings' biography of Keats (my fave Romantic) and he writes beautifully (no idea what his or Manton's standing is as scholars, though).qp10qp 20:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Mary Wollstonecraft is 53kb - is that the kind of thing you are thinking of? Or even less on the works? I have found that the more you know about a subject, the easier it is to write a short article (MW vs. Joseph Priestley). I already knew a lot about MW when I wrote that article. I just wrote it and added the notes, basically, because I had already done all of the research long ago. With Priestley, it was the reverse. Never again.


 * I already have St Clair's The Godwins and the Shelleys, so I can read that.


 * I just looked at your list. OMG. Um, since I am currently writing a dissertation, I do not really have time to read even half of those books/articles. Rather than listing everything we find (on MS, such a list will be astronomical), I suggest we try to find lists of "suggested reading" first. Editions of Frankenstein and things like the CC will be good for this. We can work from there. I will try to get some suggestions from people I know as well. Awadewit | talk  20:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, don't worry, that list is pre-boil-down. I will be reducing it to what seem the essential books.qp10qp 20:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree about "the more you know". I'm suffering from a touch of the Priestleys with Catherine de' Medici, a new subject to me (85 kb and I haven't done the arts section yet; where's my meat cleaver?). And it's breeding daughters.qp10qp 20:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (We need to be IM-ing or something.) What is your opinion of spin-off articles? Awadewit | talk  20:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm working on two or three at the moment for Catherine. I'm perhaps more in favour of them than you. They constantly came to our rescue with William Shakespeare, I must say. With MS, for example, clearly the Frankenstein section will be important; the only way to keep it under control will be to have a link to the main article at the top of the section, I think. The larger a subject, the more spin-offs it needs: articles like History of France, for example, which is a mess. One thing I'd like to do in the future is to try to get an article like that to featured status, because it would test one's concision and knowledge to the limit. In a funny way, I think "brilliant prose" becomes more and more required the more one uses summary style, because of the need to summarise and generalise vividly and pithily. Unfortunately, summary sections tend to look stubby because few editors sense the opportunity.qp10qp 21:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For some things, I see the value of spin-off articles. I suppose that I dislike them when I think they might never have been conceived of without the original article. I think users won't look for them or read them. Frankenstein is an article in its own right. Joseph Priestley and Dissent is just ridiculous in my opinion. Sexuality of William Shakespeare is right on the border.


 * All of the huge articles, like French Revolution, are a mess. I would love to do the FR, but what a project! That's years in the doing. I agree with you that it would be a test of one's mettle as both a writer and a researcher. (By the way, I'm reading Society of the Song Dynasty for FAC. Fascinating - it's one of those biggies.) Awadewit | talk  21:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think Joseph Priestley and Dissent is ridiculous. Not if one tries to think of Wikipedia as a new method of housing information. It's not a book: it could be argued that it's a simultaneous and inherently excrescent medium, where information overlays information via the click of a mouse. The articles are not discrete like chapters in a book; they overlap and partake of each other, and they breed like aphids. I'm trying to think of some titles for my Catherine articles, maybe Catherine de' Medici and the arts, CdM and architecture, CdM and entertainment...even "Catherine de' Medici's building projects". These are slightly ridiculous, too, and they embarrass me; but they would provide specific information to people interested in such aspects and save those who are not the trouble of ploughing through too discursive a main article.qp10qp 22:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) That sounds ideal, but I feel that the spin-offs are often dumping grounds for information and are rarely themselves coherent articles. By the time I finish JP, I will have little energy to devote to Joseph Priestley and education and Joseph Priestley and Dissent and Joseph Priestley and science (which should really exist but which I would have trouble writing). Awadewit | talk  22:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * One way round this may be to go about it backwards, so to speak, and work in from the spin-offs to the main article. So, although my main target at the moment is Catherine de' Medici, I envisage trying to bring one or more of the spin-offs to FAC first, which is why I'm taking so much trouble over them (still in sandboxes). By the time I get back to the CdM article itself, my conscience will be clear that I've done her as proud as I can. Those spin-offs are definitely not going to be infodumps. I intend to write the relevant summary sections of the main article only after I've written the spin-off articles properly. With all the information in my head, I should be able to write them concisely and cleanly and drop the refs in afterwards, as appropriate. Does this sound weird?qp10qp 22:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that sounds perfect. I had to rewrite the entire second half of the MW article after I wrote all of the pages on her works. The summaries should always come last (just like the lead). Whoever wrote that list of instructions advising people to write the lead of their article first was insane, in my opinion. The lead is the last chunk of prose I work on. Unfortunately, I am just not that dedicated to Priestley at the moment to do what you are doing for CdM. Perhaps at another moment in time I will be. Or perhaps someone else will be. Awadewit | talk  22:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

books
I looked at the CC further reading and they have only St Clair, Seymour, Spark, and Sunstein on it for biogs (your name has to begin with S to write about Shelley, I see). The first three are cheap to buy and the fourth is on both Amazon SI and Google Books; so I'll base my general reading on those four, then. The CC was published in 03, though, so I'll check for anything since.qp10qp 00:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have St Clair already - no need for you to buy that. I need to read it for William Godwin, anyway. I can read Sunstein, since I can get it from my library. Do you want to split them that way? (How did you get to the "Further reading"? Those pages were not part of my google books "limited preview".) Awadewit | talk  01:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Amazon Search Inside. OK, we'll split them that way.qp10qp 01:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Philostrate
I think I may finally have the issues worked out! Take a look. Wrad 19:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A short residence in Priestley
I think one can always strike in that situation. One can perhaps eventually smooth out the (clunky) new sentence in such a way that it blends in; it's pretty harmless, I suppose. For me, this is one of the trickiest types of edit to deal with on Wikipedia: one that isn't actually wrong but is an accretion rather than an addition.

I think it sometimes best to wait a while before addressing edits one disagrees with, and then doing so gently. (I wonder if the stuff at Rights of Men might have been avoided with that approach instead of the initial reversion.)

I'll have a look at Priestley to see what might need cutting. Trying to see the big picture is the toughest editing skill, and I might risk offending you with my suggestions. But I promise that suggestions is all they'll be. (You can be Thomas Wolfe and I'll be Maxwell Perkins?)qp10qp 23:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the waiting approach - which is why I didn't revert at VRM. Someone else did that. Ah well. Best laid plans...


 * I've been working on Priestley for a while, so I hope I'm not too attached to any one part of the article any more. I just wanted several opinions. Up until now, the opinion has been "the length is fine - it's long, but fine".


 * I hope I won't be offended! You always have such good reasoning! Awadewit | talk  01:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Priestly peer review
Feel free to make non-hidden comments on the sandbox page. I have a hard time following if they are all hidden. Also can utilize the sandbox's talk page too. Jeff Dahl 23:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Will do. I use wikEd, so it's easy for me to see hidden comments. Awadewit | talk  01:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Content review workshop
Awadewit, would you be interested in participating in a workshop on improving the content review processes on Wikipedia? There's a new project page at Content review/workshop, which has been set up as a place to discuss FA, GA, PR, WikiProjects such as Military History, the League of Copyeditors, Wikipedia 1.0, and any other content review processes. These don't all work smoothly all the time, as I'm sure you know. We have some participants who have experience at FA and GA, and would like to get involvement from someone with knowledge of peer review, too. You're a top-quality content editor, and I understand you've experienced peer review from both sides of the desk. Would you have time to join the discussion? I see you're both busy and have some health issues, so I understand this may be too much to ask, but I think you'd add a great deal to the discussion if you can spare the time. The project page summarizes the goals and scope of the workshop; there are some discussions on the talk page that you might find informative -- towards the end of the talk page participation expands somewhat and in the last few sections is some discussion of how we'd like to proceed.

Hope to see you over there, but if not, good luck with the featured topic on November 22, and congrats on yet another FA! Mike Christie (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would love to help out with this, as this gets at the core of what wikipedia should be doing to improve its articles. I will see what I can do. I have to grade a bunch of student papers in the next few days and I am still recovering from my flu/cold. I will see what I can do, though. Awadewit | talk  23:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Get well soon
Please rest up and get well soon. We need your presence here!  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 01:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm working on it. Awadewit | talk  03:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Bless you. Chicken soup. Hot lemon. Pick some students you really don't like, and surreptitiously sneeze on their papers before you hand them back. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

John Knox GAN
Hope you are feeling better! I recommend honey and hot lemon; it always worked for me. I think I have covered the GA concerns so far. If I missed something in my proofreading, please let me know. I have started to tackle your peer review comments. Still some way to go. I will leave explanations of the developments on the article's talk page. --RelHistBuff 15:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Looking forward to your interview. --RelHistBuff 16:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Cup
I'm working on it right now, I've done maybe half of the work. Feel free to take a peek. Maxim (talk) (contributions)  17:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Update &mdash; I've done every change you suggested except for the trustees part. I've pasted the discussion on the talkpage. Cheers, and get well soon, Maxim (talk) (contributions)  20:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

sorry to hear you're not feeling too well...
...and sending warm thoughts your way. Best wishes!! --Ling.Nut 11:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much! This is the only way I can talk now. I have totally lost my voice. Awadewit | talk  17:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

MoS
Could you give me a link (when you're better)? I can't find it. My first instinct, though, is not to bother with any MoS discussion. It's better to make one's case on the article's (or articles') talk page, because it makes sense to argue from the particular rather than the general. The guideline is helpful, I think, for people looking for advice on how to set up or adapt a hybrid or unestablished page. I don't think it is designed to actively encourage editors to change existing good pages; and in any case, one is always encouraged on wikipedia to ignore rules and guidelines when one believes that following them will worsen an article (in this case, the guideline would be misused to insist the article follow conventions alien to the academic world). So I don't think discussions on the MoS page can make any difference; the point needs to be argued on the talk page, where the case for changing VRM to BE style has been made very weakly so far. (Please don't worry that an admin will come along and insist on changing VRM to BE; admins have far more important things to do.) qp10qp 12:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Awadewit | talk  17:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No one seems very interested. I'll keep a watch and chime in if need be. It's up to Roger to see if he can raise a consensus posse, which doesn't seem likely to me.qp10qp 18:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you think I should do at MW? Revert until a final decision is reached? Leave it be for now? Awadewit | talk  18:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Forget about it till you copyedit the article or edit that part. Then write in your own style, and if the BE goes, so be it. This will only be a problem if someone is watching your edits like a hawk. That is unlikely: how sad it would be if they were. Every so often people change a few BE words to AE in Anton Chekhov ("theater" is most common one), and I polish that stuff up the next time I need to edit the article, so that it doesn't appear I'm jumping on anyone.qp10qp 19:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to say thanks for starting on Renewable energy commercialization. I think we should be using American English throughout, if that is OK. Appreciate your other questions too, on the Talk page, but am holding off answering them at this stage, in the hope that some other editors may get involved. regards, Johnfos 05:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * AE is easier for me. I'll go back and change the BE I saw to AE. Awadewit | talk  06:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Cup
I was wondering a little bit... Is it ready for an FAC, and if not, what should be done? --Maxim (talk) (contributions)  21:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't feel qualified to say. I know absolutely nothing about hockey or really any sport, so I am the last person you want assessing the article's overall quality. Awadewit | talk  23:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant copyeditng-wise. It failed FAC the last time around because of it. Badly. --Maxim (talk) (contributions)  23:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No. I didn't even read past the lead and I noticed a sentence fragment, a missing period, an incorrect use of "inscribed", and some possible redundancies. It needs some more polishing. Awadewit | talk  01:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Will you be able to improve it even more or will are you too busy for it? Thanks a lot for what you've done already. : ) Maxim (talk)  (contributions)  01:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sick right now. Can you wait a week or two? Awadewit | talk  01:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, Awadewit. It's not in a terrible rush, and I didn't work on it for a week myself. Get well quik! --Maxim (talk) (contributions)  01:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia weekly interview
Hi there, I'm interested in your work in WP and real-life and was wondering if you would like to participate in an interview for Wikipedia Weekly Podcast as part of our effort to showcase the community's talents to each other. I think many people would be interested in hearing about your work. If you're interested, give me a message. We record over skype, so you would need that programme and a headphone set with microphone. I'm fairly flexible with timing... I'm "wittylama" on skype. Hope to hear from you. Witty Lama 15:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you say a little more about what you would interested in chatting about? I listened to your interview with Tamasin Jane, which was quite enjoyable. Her dissertation topic, however, probably interests a wider audience than my assorted articles on eighteenth-century British figures and texts or my dissertation on obscure eighteenth-century children's literature, although I can of course go on about that for hours. :) Thanks. Awadewit | talk  00:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see you're interested! I'd like to talk about your particular thesis (as an introduction to who you are and where you come from) and whether the people/issues are covered in WP (or indeed in other "mainstream" sources), your take on percieved anti-elitism in the community, the role of WP in academia, and maybe the relevance of what Wollstonecraft had to say to today. How's that sound? Witty Lama 02:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am concerned about using my real name - can we do it without that? Awadewit | talk  19:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. "Awadewit" is perfectly fine - indeed preferable - since that's what people know you by. Witty Lama 14:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume waiting a couple of weeks isn't a problem? I have to go buy a set of headphones with a mic, etc. Awadewit | talk  12:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Whenever you're ready, leave me a message on my talk page (I won't be checking back here all the time) and we'll do it. You might be able to borrow a headset from a friend if you don't want to buy a set. The quality and price of microphone headset are directly related... Talk to you soon. Witty Lama 13:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yay, Awadewit podcast! – Scartol  ·  Talk  14:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your note on my talkpage. Most of us in the podcast use the "logitech 250" headset. it's about $50. this is perfectly good for music and recording audio on the built in microphone. Logitech is a trustable brand and it's a "middle of the range" headset. You could also go with the "350" model which includes a volume control on the cord. You could spend a lot more if you want but unless you're a real audiophile you probably won't notice the difference. Cheers, Witty Lama 09:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I know Logitech - they made my really cool mouse. I didn't know they made headsets, though. Last time I went with Altec Lansing. Looks like the 350s are only about $30 on newegg. Thanks. Awadewit | talk  10:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for that. Ready when you are!
 * ok, well I'm UTC +9 (Sydney) which means that when it's midnight where you are, it's 1pm here - almost exactly opposite sides of the earth. If you prefer a late-night time at your end then that would be middle of the day for me - that's fine! Friday night ok for you? say... midnight your time (making it 1pm Saturday for me)?
 * Sounds good. Awadewit | talk  19:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you're sick. That's fine to do it another time. Don't worry about it. Give me a message when you're up to it! Cheers, Witty Lama 01:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok so Sunday it is! now, going on the calculations I have written above, I am available at 1pm Sunday for me (i.e. Midnight on Saturday evening for you). Is that what you meant? I'll be out on sunday evening here so I can't do that. Please advise. Witty Lama 10:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, no, I meant midnight on Sunday here, so I guess that is 1 pm on Monday there? Is that possible? Awadewit | talk  10:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Negative, 1pm Monday I have class on. Is Monday morning (your time) ok - that would be monday evening for me?? or, better yet, I'm free all day on Thursday so Wednesday night for you? Witty Lama 10:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wednesday midnight = me; Thursday 1pm = you? (Sorry it's so complicated and this has gone on for so long!) Awadewit | talk  11:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok that's good! let's just hope that I don't get sick in the mean time :-) Can you just check my time-calculations? I'm based in Sydney. Otherwise, I'll see you then. I've added you on Skype I believe (there's only one Awadewit). Cheers, Witty Lama 11:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems right to me. I accepted you on Skype. Awadewit | talk  01:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Request
You came to mind after reading the article on "A Vindication of the Rights of Men" yesterday, and I'm well aware that I owe you more than one favour at this stage, but. Would you mind casting a harsh eye over H.D.. For whats it worth I read Janet Todd's book a few weeks back, but found it a heartbreaking and touching story. Anyway. Ceoil 20:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed that H.D. is already a featured article and not under FAR, so I assume there is some time to work with here? I am feeling overwhelmed at the moment. I would love to help out, but I feel like to give the article the proper attention, I would need at least a month. I have a long list of reviews, copy edits, and non-wiki work to do. For me, a month goes by in a flash, but for others.... Let me know if you still want my opinion.


 * I'm glad that you enjoyed Todd's book. I thought it was excellent - a skillful mix of literary criticism and biography. Awadewit | talk  00:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and there is no hurry with this. Next month, or the month after would be fine. Ceoil 12:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I now have a good grip on what needs to be done here, so its ok, don't mind me. Thanks anyway, and hope you are enjoying the accolades at the Featured topic room. Ceoil 15:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel terrible! I had just gotten to your article and was going to review it today. Can I help out in some way? I feel so guilty. Awadewit | talk  18:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Forget it. But if you turn you scapel towards the FAC Ulysses (poem), I will lay gold at you feet. Ceoil 18:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Will do. I think I peer reviewed the article a while ago, but it looks significantly expanded since then. Awadewit | talk  19:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm expecting a ruthless dissection. Spare no-one! Ceoil 19:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You might like  blood - tindersticks. Ceoil 20:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Priestley PR
No, nothing serious; a minor health matter, mostly taken care of now :) I'll gladly help where I can. It seems a shame to trim down such a well-written and researched article, but I don't think it would pass most FAC reviewers' scrutiny (or the target readers' attention span :) at its current length. I presume you mean the WikiProject Biography Peer review? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to fly off to class now, but get well soon, both of you! :) Willow 22:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, really. Didn't you just get over an illness, Awad? I wonder what could be causing it? Coughcoughobsessiveoverworkcough. – Scartol  ·  Talk  01:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm OK. Awadewit should be getting the get-well wishes—hi, Willow! Seriously, I hope you'll be all right soon. Your Talk page activity indeed suggests you need a rest :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys. I managed to make it through teaching yesterday and then I slept for twelve hours straight. It was wonderful. I won't be around for a few days, I'm afraid. I still feel terrible and I have many student papers to grade. I hope all is well with all of you. Awadewit | talk  11:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it wasn't too bad. A much easier ride than usual, and I spent a lot of time at the net with my racket ready, as did Alabamaboy and others, including some resolute vandal whackers (I really admire the guys who fight to defend articles they have no personal investment in). I was sad we didn't cop any brilliant additions. But a number of subtle tweaks by obviously knowledgeable and sophisticated readers have helped the article; so I think, overall, that it is better now, despite new carbuncles. Please get well soon. Don't you edit too much until you are match fit. Better one day with the antelopes than three with the ants. qp10qp 18:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Awadewit. I see you've started trimming efforts. Would you like me to wait and comment on an "upcoming" pared-down version instead of the one I was working with? Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Upcoming" sounds much more organized than I feel. I am revising and cutting as I have flashes of insight. I have no grand plan at the moment and I have a feeling the article will get worse before it gets better. You can either just comment on what is there (which is hopefully not horrendous) or wait. Up to you. Awadewit | talk  20:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi again! I've replied to your most recent comments. Would you mind if I hid this first part of my comments with hidden begin and hidden end, when you feel you've tackled everything you can/are able to/want to? I'm afraid the review page may be getting too long. If you object to this (or if this is frowned upon), please let me know :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine with me! Awadewit | talk  01:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) First, sorry for not being more active with the serial comma thing I volunteered for. Good luck with the Wollstonecraft FT. I can't imagine there will be any impediment.

As for JP, my preference is that – instead of replies like Option 2 in the sandbox – you just make whatever change you think is best. If it's the same as what I suggest, great. If you think there should be something different, fine – you know this stuff much better than I. I feel like counter-proposals and discussions about why something should be kept in will make things more complicated. While I'm honored that this suggests you want my opinion on the other options, I think it adds a layer of complexity that isn't necessary here. (I hope I don't sound jerky here, but there's so much going on in both of our lives that I think simpler is better, like that Thorow guy said.) I'll be doing more red-pennism on the article soon. – Scartol  ·  Talk  15:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine with me. I just didn't want you to think that I was dismissing any of your suggestions. I am carefully considering all of them. Awadewit | talk  10:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Then you're a fool. Most of my suggestions are crap. =) Seriously, I appreciate it – but I'm a HS English teacher. Having my comments treated with consideration and careful thought is strange and unnerving. – Scartol  ·  Talk  11:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Peer review – you have time, right?
You look like you need something more things to do, Awad. Fortunately, the More Work Fairy has come to grant your wish! Would you care to do a peer review of Chinua Achebe? You can post your comments here. I know you're swamped, so I won't be offended if you can't do it. I figure it can't hurt to ask. Cheers and I hope you're feeling more well. – Scartol  ·  Talk  00:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would love to help, especially on such a worthy topic, but I am really busy right now. Can you wait about a month? I have a long list of articles to review, copy edit, etc., If that is too long, I understand. Awadewit | talk  00:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries at all. If it's not yet FA by then, I'd love to have your comments. Good luck with all the stuff you've got going on – and no, I haven't forgotten about Joseph Priestly. I do still plan to review it. – Scartol  ·  Talk  15:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks much for your review; I don't know how much of the larger issues I'll be able to address, since (as I mentioned in response to Qp's notes) most of the books I found are in fact books of analysis, and nearly all glowingly positive. But I'll keep looking.


 * In updating the rating of the page to B, you said "sorry I can't rate it any higher". Is this because it's not part of a formal GA process, or because it needs a lot of work before it's GA worthy? Cheers. – Scartol  ·  Talk  12:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If if it isn't formally nominated at GAC, it can't be granted GA status. A-review is its own little thing at the WikiProject Biography as well. Personally, I think it meets those criteria. Awadewit | talk  18:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I've nominated Mr. Achebe for FA consideration. If you have a moment, perhaps you'd care to add your two cents? Thanks so much for your diligent reviewing. (And this after you said you were too busy!) – Scartol  ·  Talk  01:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the guilt from JP was overwhelming me. Adding now. :) Awadewit | talk  01:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You said that so I would feel guilty about not working on JP for the past two days, right? =) I've been a bit busy with school; will resume tomorrow (I hope). – Scartol  ·  Talk  18:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not! I am consumed by work anyway. Slow is fine with me. Awadewit | talk  09:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) It's all happening again. A little help? – Scartol  ·  Talk  15:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Qp suggested that we not get into a big debate, that the sheer number of the support votes will let it pass. He suggests we just let Roger's objection stand and not argue about it there. I'm inclined to agree. – Scartol  ·  Talk  16:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. Awadewit | talk  17:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies
I just thought I ought to apologise/apologize for being instrumental in causing the Br vs Am English debate to spill over on to Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft. Thankfully I haven't had many of these cartoon-cat-lighting-matches-in-a-dark-firework-factory moments on Wikipedia (actually this is only the second; copyediting Sino-Indian war and inadvertently coming between two editors with stridently different POVs being the first). All the same, please accept my apologies! (For what it's worth, my reading of the guidelines is that these excellent articles should be in Br-En, but I really don't feel strongly enough about it to get upset if they're not. The real shame would be if this dispute jeopardises their chance at FT). All the best ;) EyeSerene TALK 12:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries. My understanding is that it is just a guideline, not a policy. I am the near-sole editor and maintainer of nine pages (all FA) on Mary Wollstonecraft. It is just easier to keep them up in my dialect. It was easier to write them, too. :) Awadewit | talk  16:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks - as a Brit it is slightly disconcerting to see US spelling in a "British" article, but quite frankly you have produced such superb scholarly work that, if the price for that is a few missing "u"s and reversed "re"s, I'll gladly defer to your preference ;) EyeSerene TALK 17:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you explain to me why it is so disconcerting? As a graduate student, I have read plenty of scholarship about American literature written in BE and plenty of scholarship on British literature in AE. It has never struck me as odd and I have never heard anyone mention this outside of wikipedia. I really do want to understand. (The far more common complaint among academics is about translation - arguments for and against.) Awadewit | talk  17:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good question! It's forced me to think, anyway ;)
 * I think, in part at least, the intensity of feeling comes from what many Britons see as the current assault on 'British' culture; the US comes in for a certain amount of the flak for this. For example, much of our entertainment comes from your side of the Atlantic, and reflects a culture that is not our own (it's a currently hot topic of debate that UK childrens' TV schedules are full of US programmes rather than home-grown ones). I suppose nitpicking over spelling is a symptom of resistance; an understandable instinct arises to protect what's 'ours'... but, as you know only too well, this can be taken to the point of unreason ;) There's also a certain snobbery in some quarters where AE is not regarded as 'proper' English (the irony of course being that it's closer in many respects to the original language than modern BE).
 * Personally I'll admit that, like you, I prefer my own dialect given the choice. I have no problem using AE though; I've undertaken many copyedits using AE without any lasting trauma. US spelling and phraseology stands out when I see it, but only because I'm used to seeing BE. However, it does seem to rouse not-always-logical feelings of national slight when British subjects are written about in an non-British way... and the more strongly BE is resisted, the more intense the national insult. For such an ultimately trivial issue, there are more than enough partisans on either side for both of us ;) <font color="RoyalBlue">EyeSerene <font color="OliveDrab">TALK 20:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is all very fascinating. BE is often viewed as somehow "superior" to AE over here, for some unfathomable reason. Certainly the accent is associated with "poshness". I guess, perhaps deep down, it rankles when editors ask me to change my prose to BE all of the time (I only write on British topics), because it seems as if AE is not "good enough" for their beloved figures/books. Thanks for helping me delve into my psyche. Awadewit | talk  20:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you not read Manual of Style (spelling)? Alientraveller 20:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have. See Talk:A Vindication of the Rights of Men, if you want to see the debate. Awadewit | talk  21:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Two nations divided by a common language" indeed. <font color="RoyalBlue">EyeSerene <font color="OliveDrab">TALK 21:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Southam and other things
I have not been responsive, as I would have liked to be, to your part of our conversations here. It appears that I didn't check the "Watch this page" box and didn't pick up your comments on my Watch list. Or perhaps the "check" goes away for a new page when the old one is archived - I'll watch more closely for this. If for any reason you need a response and aren't getting it, please YELL on my talk page. Simmaren 22:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries. Awadewit | talk  23:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been concerned about "original research" for the same reasons as you are. I think that this is a marginal case. The Southam books themselves are secondary sources. The reviews are secondary sources when the topic is criticism of JA (why is a book published by Kirkham recently more or less secondary than a review published in 1816 - both contain the critic's thoughts and reactions) and primary sources for a history of JA criticism (which is the focus of one of our (to-be-completed) subpages. Even in the latter case, it seems legitimate to mine the original reviews for illustrations of points made by secondary treatments of the history of JA criticism, of which we have several in the compendia. This comes close to the line but doesn't, IMO, cross it. As for what I think you should cover in Southam, by all means pick up the introductory material. The rest could wait until we work on the history of criticism sub-page, unless you think there is gold to be found for what we are doing now. Please use your (more-than-adequate) discretion, in light of how you are feeling.Simmaren 22:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I will not be posting notes on all two volumes of Southam, just the authors he himself mentions as significant in the history of JA criticism. I think that is a logical course to take. Then we'll have it ready for the subpage. Awadewit | talk  23:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see my response to your "How tiresome" comment on my talk page. Simmaren 22:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

MW Topic
I've been thinking about the "Mary Woolstonecraft" FTC and I have a concern. I don't know if we can say that the topic is complete without Godwin's biography. It played a big part in her reception, contains many of her (lesser) works, and tells a lot of her life history which critics refer to to this day. Maybe rename the topic "Works of Mary Woolstonecraft"? I just don't know if I like the idea of passing it as a topic without the bio. I just wanted to get your thoughts first. Wrad 15:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not really interested in nominating a topic named "Works of MW" because then none of the other pages could eventually go into it. If you feel that the works do not work as a coherent topic, that is fine, but I would argue that they do. The study of Godwin's biography is actually fairly new, so the page won't even be able to go FA, I don't think, because there is so little scholarship on it (see bibliography listed there now - that is about all there is). And, by the way, Godwin's biography does not contain any of Wollstonecraft's lesser works. That would be the Posthumous Works, published separately from the biography. Awadewit | talk  17:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Must have got them mixed up. Wrad 17:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the peer review
Thank you very much Awadewit for your peer review and comments on the William Stacy article. Regards, ColWilliam 23:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

WBFAN and reviewing
Awadewit, thank you very much for the flattering offer to exchange reviews. I am rather torn, to tell you the truth; it's a long story, but I have tried for a while to avoid much in the way of editing on WP outside article space. I'm loath to pick up any obligations. However, I am an admirer of your writing, and would always like to know when you have something nominated. I think I'd like to leave it that we can notify each other if we would like another pair of eyes, but there's no obligation there. I just don't think I could be sure to always give your articles the attention they deserve. For your current Featured Topic, for example, I have considered supporting, but feel I really should go and read all of each of those articles first, which I have not yet done; I'd feel hypocritical about supporting on faith. However I see you're gathering lots of support votes, so I am sure it will pass quite quickly.

As for WP:WBFAN, yes, I've noticed how many top editors are no longer active. It is depressing. That's related to why I try to work in article space -- I realized a while back that although I do enjoy other areas of WP, from vandal-fighting to AfD to the Village Pump, they are all infinite time sinks, and that I need to have some metric I can use to establish the value of my time on WP so I can make sure I don't feel I'm wasting that time. WBFAN is an easy proxy for that, though in fact the way I got started on writing a lot of FAs was because I realized I could treat FAs like term papers: I mostly write them on subjects I don't know very well, but am interested in; that forces me to really study the sources and retain the information properly. It's helping me with my history reading by making my time on WP more like a college class. WBFAN is just a pleasant metric I can use, rather like a GPA, I suppose, to track my progress. If I had no such external value for my contributions I think I would quit too, before too long.

Thanks again for the offer, and as I said, please ask me when you would like a review -- I won't always respond, but I will if I have time and feel I can say something useful. Mike Christie (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely understand your reticence to do anything beyond article editing. I have restricted myself to article-writing and article-reviewing. I am not really interested in vandal-fighting, AfD, etc. Too much politicking. I also don't have enough time for those tasks and I think my talents are better suited to writing and reviewing, anyway. I completely understand about the featured topic (does that mean, though, that you don't trust the FA process? I'm shocked!) - I would feel the same obligation. I'm glad that you started the review of FAC, GAC, and PR. I hope that some productive proposals are implemented out of it. It is so difficult to achieve any consensus for change. Awadewit | talk  06:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I have a fair amount of faith in FAC, and I wouldn't feel too bad about supporting the featured topic since every single article is FA. My own experiences at FA have been fairly positive -- I've been lucky enough to get some very good reviewers on several of my FACs.  As for the content workshop, helping to start that is completely against my own rules -- I know it's a time sink, but I just thought it was necessary and I hoped I'd be able to help.  It does seem to be making some progress; let's hope that continues. Mike Christie (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as WP:WBFAN goes, your articles were all written in the modern era. Looking at the people above you, only three, Piotrus, Hurricanehink and Cla68 have their articles up to modern standard. Most of the higher ranking people have articles that would be easy meat for FAR..... That's ok, most people like to rise up WBFAN... me too. I counted that I would be at #61 when the next FAC passes. (oh well, mine were modern era as well). Anyway, as far as Emsworth and Johnleemk go, they were teenagers when they were editing heavily and stopped basically when they got to their last yr of high school an started uni. Worldtraveller and Filiocht quit citing clashes with authorities and people they considered to be ruling/bureaucratic class.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 03:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In principle, I do tend to frequent your FACs on a regular basis, but I do tend to specialise in complaining about black holes in the content and checking the references to see if the writer matched the refs and content in a thorough manner. I would look at your articles, but I would be unlikely to find content problems to any high degree. I do find prose issues with some articles that I review and sometimes just copyedit them myself, but obviously your articles aren't of a lower standard of English than mine. I do try, although it seems other people are better at finding stylistic quirks and curiousities that need to be ironed out. <font color="GoldenRod">Blnguyen  (<font color="#FA8605">two years of monkeying ) 06:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I try to frequent yours as well, particularly because they are filling gaping holes in wikipedia coverage. It is also nice to read such well-done articles that just need a comma here and a comma there. :) Awadewit | talk  06:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's good to see that you are healthy again. It must be a good omen for the start of my thrid wiki-year. <font color="GoldenRod">Blnguyen  (<font color="#FA8605">two years of monkeying ) 06:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Happy wiki-birthday! Awadewit | talk  06:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, happy wiki-birthday, Blnguyen. (See you both at the top of WBFAN in another couple of years!) Mike Christie (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Priestley
Many thanks for the invitation to review Joseph Priestley; however, when I got around to having a look, the review process already seemed to be well in progress, and with reviewers that appear to have much more background knowledge than I do. Thus, I'll sit back for the moment, and possibly chime in at a later date. --Markus Poessel 08:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps if I have any specific questions I could ask you? I'm just very frightened that the page is going to end up containing some massive scientific error. :) Awadewit | talk  08:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, if there is a massive scientific error, about five different people are gleefully going to point it out in the FAC review. Anyway, I've got some time now so I'll give it a (cursory) read-through. First thing I noticed is a technicality, though: a scientific peer review is meant to be transcluded to the ordinary peer review page. In your case, something appears to have gone wrong: there seem to be two independent peer reviews going on, which makes things a bit confusing.  I'll chime in at the most recent (ordinary) peer review, even though it's not the one linked from the article's talk page... --Markus Poessel 11:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, my mistake. The non-transcluded peer review is at WikiProject Biography, so I guess everything is alright. Anyway, that's where I've left my comments. --Markus Poessel 14:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Robin Starveling
I just went over the article and think it's ready for a re-review. Wrad 19:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got everything now but the Analysis section. I'm trying to puzzle through that on the talk page and am wondering if you could provide some insight. Wrad 19:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Whew! I think we have it now. Thanks for helping me talk my way through it. Wrad 20:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sometimes that is all that is needed - just some chatting. Awadewit | talk  20:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series
I've had a go at editing the lead. I've removed the last "brothers" also.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  20:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :-D Any chance of it passing FA, do you think? Or is it too short?  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  20:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't you wait a few years and see what develops? I'm sure many more suits will be brought. In my opinion it seems premature to bring this article to FAC, knowing that it will be unstable. The rest of the films haven't even been released yet. There are as-yet unreleased DVDs just waiting to be pirated. :) The issue for me wouldn't be length, but inherent lack of comprehensiveness. It is a developing story - almost news. I may be in a minority in this view, though. I just like to submit really thoroughly researched articles to FAC (here are some I won't take to FAC, because I don't think there is enough scholarship on them yet: The History of the Fairchild Family, Priestley Riots, and The Guardian of Education. GA is as high as those can go, in my opinion, at the moment) But, as I said, I may be in a minority on this. Awadewit | talk  20:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

reply
Did you intend to review Nightmare in the next ~6 hours? I had been planning to continue pecking away at it, though I'm not sure whether I will. If you intend to, please let me know and I'll refrain from changing it under your nose! –<font color="#112299">Outriggr § 02:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Doing the review now. I actually left my computer to go see a movie! Awadewit | talk  04:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * On a related note! While I think it would be a pleasure to work with you on an article, my reading on Fuseli leaves me intimidated. You might say, but what about all your work on the Nightmare article? Well, this painting is really the exception in his oeuvre. It's 18th-century pop culture, if you will. His work for the most part is so permeated with literary and historical/mythological references that it needs your touch, and maybe one of your Shakspearean buddies. :) This is the long way of saying that his art ain't really my bag. If there is another painter you'd be interested in, let me know. –<font color="#112299">Outriggr § 10:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Shiver youR timbers Outriggr; it'll be FAC quicker than you expect. Ceoil 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Argh (sp?). I missed International Talk Like a Pirate Day. Awadewit | talk  20:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hold this thought, until Outrigger is blue from embarrasment. That will tell him to mess with me re: emdash. Ceoil 20:34, 21 October 2007

Introduction to evolution
How are things going? How is the rewrite and copyedit going? I was going to wait until you had finished before I took another look at it.--Filll 23:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought I had finished up my part of that a while ago. Awadewit | talk  01:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

On Candide
I'm clearly not a disinterested party since I put in a good deal of work on it, but I wonder if maybe your GA review of Candide was a tad harsh? I feel weird even bringing it up, since you've been so kind and supportive of my efforts (and others') to improve article quality. I don't ask rhetorically, and I really don't feel comfortable questioning your judgment. But I know your standards are admirably high, and that you work so hard to get articles to FA status. Is it possible that the Candide article, while not nearly in FA territory, does meet the criteria of GA?

I can't find fault with any of the comments you made in your review, and I'm certainly not asking you to reconsider. I suppose I'm mostly just curious about where you see the bar for GA vs. FA. Cheers and please don't be mad. – Scartol  ·  Talk  17:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Question away (as I always encourage my students) and I am certainly not mad. I certainly want to exude a virtual aura of "let me explain my thinking to you on this because I believe I have rational reasons for it".


 * I don't think I have my own personal set of standards; I try to follow the GA standards. I felt incredibly bad about having to fail the article and I thought a long time before doing it. It was one of those situations in which I knew a lot of effort had been expended but the goal had not yet been reached (I'm sure you have seen this in students). Not explaining claims, particularly what the article claims is a major theme (i.e. "evil"), is a sure way to fail in my book. The article's prose could also be improved, as I am sure you noticed. However, if the prose had been the only problem, perhaps I would have fixed the problem myself or put it on hold, but there was just too much content missing. I have spent quite a while looking at the literature pages on wikipedia and I review a lot of literature pages at PR, FAC, and GAC (that's how I found you!). Sadly, "Themes" sections are some of the most poorly developed sections on these pages. For a major novel like Candide (which the article itself describes as a bestseller and one of the most influential novels of the eighteenth century), I see no reason to let the problems I outlined in my review slide. I hope that the tone of the review didn't sound harsh - I didn't mean it to.


 * By the way, I have noticed that editors tend not to add much content between GA and FA. Note that this is my personal perception of literature pages - it could be incorrect. Let me give a hypothetical example. It is rare that someone will write a biography of writer X that includes sections on their life and works that is based on more than one work of scholarship for GA if they haven't gone the whole hog and read five or six biographies (if they are available) as well as articles, etc. It is more usual that someone will write a biography of writer X based on a single biography and not include any sections on the writings. It seems to me that whatever research editors are going to do, they have done by the time they get to GA and they often resist doing much more. It is just a pattern I have noticed. I do a lot of peer reviewing at WP:PR and I often see requests explained this way "This article just passed GA - what can I do to get it to FA?" As I saw you make the analogy to grades on the Candide page, I will make one now; to me, this sounds like "How can I get an A?", not "How can I make the article better?" Responses to this question are rarely: go forth and spend months reading. I have occasionally recommended this for articles desperately in need of research but am often rebuffed. See this interesting debate. Research is often one of the weakest areas of articles. Perhaps I should get off of my soapbox now.


 * This is all to say that stopping articles in their tracks - for whatever reason - at GA, before PR and certainly before FAC, is, IMO, a good idea. Editors are usually more receptive to reviews the further down the chain you go. :) Awadewit | talk  19:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Thanks for the discussion. I appreciate it. – Scartol  ·  Talk  15:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject_European_history vs. WikiProject_History/Task_forces/Europe
I'm posting a message to all members of WikiProject_European_history to make sure everyon is aware that there is a proposal (apparently never discussed on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_European_history to deprecate the project and mark it historical supplanting it with WikiProject_History/Task_forces/Europe. Whether or not this should occur, we need to have as much discussion as possible.  So far, only two editors have had anything to say about it.  Please join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_European_history.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate
I have made some major edits to the Society of the Song Dynasty article, including new sub-section titles, revised sentences, deleted sentences, and added information. If you do a quick re-read, I hope you notice the various changes and are pleased with them.-- Pericles of Athens  <font color="#0000CD">Talk 01:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/2007 Malaysian Grand Prix
Any chance you could register you support or oppose, and possibly leave a few comments if that's OK. On that note, someone is requesting that the article be copy-edited, despite the fact it has been copy-edited twice (once by you, and once by BeL1EveR)!! Please leave comments if you have some spare time. Thanks, Davnel03 09:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel ill-equipped to comment on this article at FAC. I also don't think that my copy editing skills will assist you any more. You need someone with expertise in F1 racing. An ignorant writer (even a good one!) can only do so much. Awadewit | talk  09:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you to copy-edit it, I'm just informing you that someone at the FAC wants it copy-edited that's all! Thanks anyhow. Davnel03 09:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just reinforces a decision I made not to copy edit any more sports articles. I don't think I do a very good job - I am too unfamiliar with the vocabulary and syntax. Awadewit | talk  09:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think yuo did a good job. Plus - it was copy-edited after by Bel1Ever. Oh well. I'll see what others think. Davnel03 09:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)