User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 8

Joseph Priestley
Hi there. First of all, I'd like to say I've read the article and it seems excellent, apart from the odd typo and the hyphens in section headings :) (Sorry, couldn't think of anything else at all to criticize). I am flattered that you'd want my help, and I gladly offer it, but: I must let you know that my knowledge of biology and chemistry is far more an informed interest than actual knowledge, and probably doesn't exceed yours by that much! What exactly are you looking for—help with a particular section, expanding on a subject, making a certain passage more layperson-friendly?

I'm finishing a job right now, but feel free to reply whenever you like and send any material you'd like me to have a look at my way, and I'll see what and how much I can do for you. I also noticed the notice at the top here—feel free to reply where you like: here (probably best for you), my Talk page, a subsection of the article Talk page or my e-mail; I'll be watching them all. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You do some seriously great work here, if I may say so :)


 * Thanks for the compliments. I actually feel that the Priestley article is quite poor right now because I have just been throwing things up as I have been reading the biographies (the page that existed when I started was full of errors and quite short). I haven't really had time to properly organize it, copy edit it (as you could tell) or cut the unimportant sections yet. The page is much too long already and I haven't even finished Priestley's life. I finally decided that I would worry about the cutting later.


 * I can hardly imagine that you know the same amount of biology and chemistry as I do. My knowledge is restricted to high school bio and chem and the MIT online courses that I watched a few months ago. Whatever sections say "natural philosophy" need help, really. Schofield's biography describes the material in detail. I haven't read all of the articles listed on the page yet, but some of them might be useful as well. Awadewit Talk 02:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the compliments, you're welcome. Now, if you think the article is quite poor, your standards are certainly higher than mine! And if you can "hardly imagine that you know the same amount of biology and chemistry as I do"…well, I'm sorry to disappoint you; as I told another editor just a few days ago, I'm a translator, and any "extra" scientific knowledge I have is purely "self-directed and nearly self-taught" (recognize that quote? :). It will take me a while to get my hands on Schofield's biography—I'll pull some strings with my local bookseller/libraries but it might be a couple of months. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine - perhaps between the two of us, we can figure it all out. Schofield's biography would probably be too expensive to buy - I urge the library. Awadewit Talk 02:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey again—I'm afraid I don't bring good news. I was unable to find either volume of the Schofield biography in any library over here—public, university etc. My usual bookseller could get the second volume, but it would take over two months to fly over and, as you predicted, is way over my budget right now... I'll have a look at the articles as soon as I have time and see what I can do. I'm sorry—don't seem to be much help, do I? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Do your libraries do interlibrary loan? That might work. Thanks for reading the articles with me. I just feel out of my depth. Awadewit Talk 23:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By "any" I meant "in the country" (yes, I know). I'll see what I can read over the next few days—I'm having ISP trouble, and am now at an Internet café—but, from what I've read and in my humble opinion, you have no reason to feel out of your depth. The article seems perfectly accessible and comprehensive to me, even though you haven't copyedited it yet, and some judicious wikilinking could probably help. I don't think you have anything to worry about :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, I still feel that perhaps I have not chosen to focus on the right discoveries and that I should describe the experiments Priestley performed a bit more. I also need to drastically cut the page (it is currently 100kb), but I can't decide what to cut. Every time I bring myself to cut something, I end up adding something else. Awadewit Talk 10:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You popped up on my watchlist, so I thought it might be a good time to let you know I haven't forgotten—am currently reading the latest version of the article, and seeing if I can arrange the relevant sections on Word and print them out for better reading. I hope your dissertation is going well, and I hope you're not in a hurry :) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am certainly in no hurry. I am currently immersed in Rousseau research for my dissertation. I add bits to the Joseph Priestley article every day (as well as try to delete something), though, so it changes pretty frequently. I am fascinated by the number of people who print out articles to read them. Apparently we haven't fully moved away from the printed word, yet. I myself couldn't imagine printing out the articles since I edit while I read. Awadewit Talk 18:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Me and JP
I'll try to check out the biographies you mention and see what I can do with the natural philosophy sections, though it may be a few weeks before I can get to it. Also, have you read Kuhn's discussions of Priestley in Structure of Scientific Revolutions? The fact that the discovery of oxygen is one of Kuhn's central examples of paradigm shift probably merits a least a brief. I haven't really taken a good look at the work you've done on the article so far, but I will do so.--ragesoss 23:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No rush. I will add in the Kuhn when I get a chance. I was beginning with the basic biographical material and then planning to move out to the interpretative debates. Awadewit Talk 00:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

re:wikibreak
The variable you want is 'image' not 'noimage'. GeorgeMoney (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oddly, the image only shows up when I place the file name in "noimage." I've tried "image." Awadewit Talk 02:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured topic
Have you thought about collecting many of your articles under a featured topic or two? It would be a good way to organize much of the work you've done at Wikipedia, if that kind of categorization makes sense of course.-BillDeanCarter 02:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have. Eventually I hope to do two: Major works of Mary Wollstonecraft and Major writers of eighteenth-century children's literature. The Wollstonecraft will probably come first. Awadewit Talk 09:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. I read about your mishap.  I hope you get better soon, but take the time to relax.  Wikipedia can wait.-BillDeanCarter 03:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate that. I'm rating biography articles for fun. Whoo. Awadewit | talk  02:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Karmichael Hunt
Will you peer review Karmichael Hunt. That would be much appreciated.

Article:Karmichael Hunt Peer Review:Peer review/Karmichael Hunt

Thanks

SpecialWindler 07:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything at all about rugby, so I don't know how helpful my peer review will be. I'll see what I can do, though. Awadewit Talk 09:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks (I'm sure it will be helpful) SpecialWindler 10:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It'd be much appreaciated. SpecialWindler 11:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Zombies in popular culture
You put some citation needed tags on this article. Concerning the Epic of Gilgamesh: there are literaly only about 10 extant historical texts which pre-date this, so we can be pretty sure this is the earlist recorded reffernce to "zombies". Would a citation verifying it's ancientness be sufficent? Or some rewording of the statement? What exactly are you looking for here? Tomgreeny 15:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Regarding mythological creatures:Draugr, Jikininki I think there is enough stuff in the auricles on them to support them being referred to as "flesh hungry undead".Tomgreeny 15:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You have to find a source that says the Epic was the first, otherwise its original research. Like I said in the review. your arguments might be persuasive, but they are still OR, and we don't do that at wikipedia.
 * With the other two, you should find a reference to them as part of the proto-zombie literature. Right now, it just looks like the editors of the page are constructing this timeline of literary influences. Awadewit Talk 16:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan Peer Review
Hey again Awadewit. Ronald Reagan is up for a peer review, and if you find the time, any comments will really help us out....Thanks, Happyme22 16:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry, but I don't have the time right now that a proper peer review for that page would require. As you can see on my userpage, I am trying to rewrite a dissertation chapter right now. I good review of Ronald Reagan would take hours. If it is still up in 3-4 weeks, I will look at it then. I hope you can understand. Awadewit Talk 16:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's ok. Good luck with your paper. Happyme22 23:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

karmichael hunt
Thanks for reviewing the page.

I have done alot of you suggestions and commented on some.

I have striked out the suggestions I have completed (which is most of them).

Thankyou.

SpecialWindler 04:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I hope it was helpful. Awadewit | talk  07:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Get well soon
Am I reading this right? Are you sick? If so get well soon, you're thorough reviews and fine editing are needed around here. Quadzilla99 17:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My wishes as well. It appears you've had a small mishap? (I'm watching way too many Talk pages...) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your concern. Yes, I fell and broke/sprained my ankle and hit my head on the sidewalk. Do either of you have any reading recommendations? I seem to be surrounded by my dissertation research which is pretty hard going right now. Concussions and Rousseau don't mix well. I will probably not be doing much intensive wikipedia work for a week or so. Awadewit | talk  17:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're trying to stray from what I presume is your usual (and your day job :), how about some Vonnegut? I'm also a big Jonathan Safran Foer and Nicole Krauss fan, and Paul Auster's Collected Prose has been on my shopping list for a while. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Thank you! Awadewit | talk  12:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do get well: it must be bad to stop you editing. :( Thinking of you.):

My best reading recommendation would be the awesome "In the Ravine" by Chekhov; also his "Three Years": they are supposedly long stories, but to me they are great short novels. They are online in the old Constance Garnett translations, which I still like the best.

Those are page turners, I think. But if you really want something funny and easy-going, I'd recommend the wonderful "True Grit" by Charles Portis. Then there's the adorable "The Young Visiters" by Daisy Ashford, which hookingly starts:


 * Mr. Salteena was an elderly man of 42 and was fond of asking peaple to stay with him. He had quite a young girl staying with him of 17 named Ethel Monticue. Mr Salteena had dark short hair and mustache and wiskers which were very black and twisty. He was middle sized and he had very pale blue eyes. He had a pale brown suit but on Sundays he had a black one and he had a topper every day as he thorght it more becoming. Ethel Monticue had fair hair done on the top and blue eyes. She had a blue velvit frock which had grown rarther short in the sleeves. She had a black straw hat and kid gloves.


 * One morning Mr Salteena came down to brekfast and found Ethel had come down first which was strange. Is the tea made Ethel he said rubbing his hands. Yes said Ethel and such a quear shaped parcel has come for you. Yes indeed it was a quear shape parcel it was a hat box tied down very tight and a letter stuffed between the string. Well well said Mr Salteena parcels do turn quear I will read the letter first and so saying he tore open the letter and this is what it said


 * My Dear Alfred.


 * I want you to come for a stop with me so I have sent you a top hat wraped up in tishu paper inside the box. Will you wear it staying with me because it is very uncommon. Please bring one of your young ladies whichever is the prettiest in the face.


 * I remain Yours truely


 * Bernard Clark.

(Now stuff like that that has to cheer an invalid up.) qp10qp 04:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and from your own period, it may be wrong of me but I find Fanny Burney ridiculously funny; so what about "The Witlings"? qp10qp 04:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words and the excellent suggestions - I should have asked everyone for a reading list long ago! Awadewit | talk  12:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Re-review
I know your currently sick, but when you return, can you re-review Karmichael Hunt.

The main problem with the article, for FA, is that it isn't comprehensive enough, and a little problem of prose.

I am planning to expand all the current seasons to make them longer etc. To elaborate on his "superstardom" tag in 2004, to his poor form in 2005, to his rise to representative level in 2006. But at the moment, Im fine with the article.

Thanks for you original review, it helped.

SpecialWindler 11:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you can wait a couple of weeks, I will do what I can. Awadewit | talk  12:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks SpecialWindler 21:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Hold II
Hi again. I have done some changes to the article about Eugenio Espejo. Check them out when you can, and please tell me if I have missed something before the deadline! About the references, I don't know where I can put a note about the lack of English sources... Well, that's all. Dalobuca 02:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer review
Thank you! I appreciate the recognition. Awadewit | talk  23:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

WS
I'll certainly have a look in the next few days. You convalesce now, though. qp10qp 22:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. Awadewit | talk  23:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

J. R. Richard FAC
I saw that you were busy, but if you get the chance, can you take a look at J. R. Richard? I'm hitting some snags at the FAC at the moment, and a copyediting is needed (WP:LOCE, WP:BIOPR, WP:PR are all backlogged). Thanks for any assistance, Nishkid64 (talk)  00:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Two things. I know nothing about baseball and I had a concussion about a week ago. These two things may impair any copy editing that I do. Are you still sure that you want me to work on the article? Awadewit | talk  01:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, I'm terribly sorry to hear about your concussion. I do wish you the best in your recovery. In any case, any help that you could give me would be appreciated. Even if you're a bit out of it, you're still a billion times better than me at writing :-P. Nishkid64 (talk)  20:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Karmichael huNT
I have re-opened the peer review.

It's linked here

I've re-opened it due to the adding of alot of information, making it comprehensive (hopefully)

Thanks for reviewing Karmichael Hunt before.

SpecialWindler 08:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:User page
Well, I'm not aware of any simple way to reduce the size of the awards as a group. The best thing to do is probably to convert your gallery into a table. If you go here you can see how I have it set up as a two-column table with font size at 85% and 60px images. Feel free to copy the formatting if you like (I "borrowed" it from another user), and let me know if you need any help. Carom 15:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Something has gone awry. Check out what happened. It mostly worked. Awadewit | talk  22:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, almost had it. Each component needs to be divided up by a, that's why things weren't displaying properly. I've fixed the table for you, and it looks correct now. Carom 22:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. Those pesky little lines. Thanks so much. Awadewit | talk  23:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

W. B. Yeats
I don't need an extensive review for this FAR, but have hit a structural wall, which I inegantly summarised here. Sorry to bother you, as I have bothered you before, but I have more to add to the article, but its current form is stunted. Best Ceoil 04:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you give me a day or two? I have recently had a concussion and am still recovering. Thanks. Awadewit | talk  04:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. Ceoil 04:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate it. Awadewit | talk  04:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As it happens I am also ill at the moment (from a random attack in dublin), so no hurry with this one. Ceoil 04:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. I hope you were not attacked by a Dubliner. :) Awadewit | talk  05:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have completed a brief overview. I did not nitpick over individual sentences too much (I hope). Let me know if the review helps or if you want more suggestions. Awadewit | talk  18:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughtful review; you have given me much to work with, and I now have the basis for a restructure. Once that is done, and I have expanded where necessary, I'll call in the copy editors. Best Ceoil 20:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Good luck with the rescue! Awadewit | talk  20:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

J. R. Richard
Thanks for doing the copyediting, Awadewit. I'm currently working through your edits to see what I need to correct. In regards to, why do you think including his dimensions is a bad idea? Usually, sports-related articles mention the height and weight of the athlete. In this case, it's something to note, because he was much taller than probably 99% of all professional baseball players. Perhaps, I should mention that to clarify as to why it is noteworthy to include in the article. Also, I replied to your comments at the FAC page. I'll try to find something about Richard, but I don't think that's likely going to happen. There's hardly anything written about him, besides his baseball career. Anyway, thanks again for the copyediting :). Nishkid64 (talk)  22:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The sentence regarding his dimensions seemed oddly placed. If it is relevant, I would find a better place to put it. I would also definitely mention the comparison - that gives the figures meaning.
 * If you cannot find any other information, that is the way the cookie crumbles. I just wanted to note that some aspects of the article seemed to be missing to me. Awadewit | talk  01:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Prof. T C Wong
I know we dont always agree, but marking a full professor of chinese at Arizona State as db-A7 is a little odd--surely that is at least an assertion of notability? or did I miss something? As for actual notability we havent't seen a full professor at a research university get deleted this year -- but of course you are very welcome to try. . (smile)  If your ankle is still a problem, I usually recommend PG Wodehouse for all invalids. For one thing, there's an immense amount, & you can start anywhere DGG 05:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't think that just being a professor was notable enough. I would think that he would have had to affect his field in some dramatic way to be included in wikipedia. Are we really going to include page for every professor that has ever worked at an institution of higher learning? That seems a little odd to me. Some academics just don't do anything noteworthy within their field. I do not want to bother to go through the deletion process over this - someone else can fight that fight. I thought that it would obvious that since the page doesn't say why he is important in his field, that it should be deleted. Awadewit | talk  13:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Review
Can you review this section of the article please, to see if I'm going in the right direction... Cheers. -- Dark Falls  talk 08:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you are going in the right direction. I wonder, though, if what you list as "commendation" by critics is really damning with faint praise. I haven't read the entire review, so I can't say for sure, but some of the sentences you quoted as "positive" reviews seemed to have a little dig in them as well. Awadewit | talk  13:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean: "'This book is really a number of silly little stories strung loosely together like 'schlenters' (fools diamonds) about to fall off a string of dental floss.'" I assumed it was praise, due to the wording of the quote, and the assumption that the LA Times meant it as positive, but on second thoughts... I added it to a third section. -- Dark Falls  talk 00:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "a genius... at writing potboilers. In 'Master of the Game' he has outdone even himself" - I read this a bit negatively as well; aren't potboilers generally considered to be a genre turned out by hack writers? Awadewit | talk  03:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "the title of this book is an apt description of the author. In the business of creating hard-to-put-down bestsellers, Sidney Sheldon is indeed the master of the game." - Even this could have negative overtones, suggesting that Sheldon is not an artist but a businessman - he writes for money. That is not always viewed positively by book critics. Awadewit | talk  03:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Kate Blackwell, "is presented as some kind of role model, but it is the sort of role made popular in olden times by Joan Crawford" - I'm just not sure here - is that good or bad? Read about Joan Crawford - would the reviewer want us to go back to that or not? Again, without reading the whole review, I cannot be sure. Note, though, that the sentence says "some kind of role model" as if that is hardly believable and then goes on to say "but," implying that whatever is in the book is undesirable. Awadewit | talk  03:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I see the problem. Without clarification, I doubt we could figure out the meaning of some of the quotes. Trouble is, some of the reviews don't exist on the newspaper's website anymore, as most of the archives starts in the 1990's. I am pretty sure the Crawford quote is suppose to be a praise, given the actress has won an Academy award (Why would they compare a reputable actress to the character, if it was meant to be negative?). As for the others, this is the source I used to get the quotes... -- Dark Falls  talk 03:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have access to LexisNexis and other databases like that? They have the newspapers archived further back. And there is always microfilm. (They are not comparing the actress, I don't think; they are comparing her roles.) Awadewit | talk  03:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Negative for LexisNexis. Did a search and there's no book reviews there... As for the others, a google search didn't turn up much. On Joan Crawford's roles, quoting from the article: "During the early 1930s, Crawford modified her image to better fit the hard-scrabble conditions of Depression-era America. In this new role, she played a glamorized version of the working girl who relied on her intelligence, looks, and sheer determination to get ahead in life."-- Dark Falls  talk 04:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure it isn't in LexisNexis? I can't seem to get on right now, but the LA Times review is at least on the LA Times site (for paying subscribers) - that means it is digitized somewhere. See here.
 * Can't seem to find the NYT review. As for the LA one, I don't subscribe... Which gives us the main problem. -- Dark Falls  talk 05:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the simplest way of fixing this is to make the reader make the assumptions, instead of doing it for them. I've changed the section. -- Dark Falls  talk 05:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the reader should be able to decide for themselves - that is probably the best solution here. Unfortunately, you have now created a new problem - you have used the word "commented" four times in one paragraph. :) A work in progress, I know. Awadewit | talk  05:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * All done for now... Thanks for your help. -- Dark Falls  talk 06:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried adding a "themes" section, but am pretty worried that this stinks too much of OR and bad writing. Any suggestions? -- Dark Falls  talk 09:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is original research. I think that you really need to locate those reviews - they will provide you with information like that. Try your library's microfilm collection. You might also look at these guidelines for writing a novel page. There are some suggestions there for research. Awadewit | talk  16:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Review request
When you get back to reviewing please would you take a look at my aticle Donald Meltzer. It is my first contribution to Wikipedia though I am an experienced academic writer and lecturer in the field of English literature and psychoanalytic aesthetics. The subject of the biography will be unknown to almost everyone outside th specialised field of post-Kleinian psychoanalysis so I do not aim to get much review of content but review of style and presentation would be helpful. Especially since I've been having a battle with someone who immediately put up lots of tags and then made irrelevant (quite nonsensical) links which I've had to remove. When I get time I shall put some info on my own user page. Many thanks ArtLit 09:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Where would you like me to post the review? Your talk page? The article's talk page? Awadewit | talk  13:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks very much - the article's talk page perhaps. Thanks for looking at the article - actually I was doing some editing at the same time as you! I didn't understand about the Reference headings - what difference results from those 2 types of bracket?  (re 'at' the Society - people always say 'of the Society' - presumably because it is thought of more as a group than as a place) ArtLit 14:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you are asking about the brackets. Awadewit | talk  16:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Priestley images
Hello, Awadewit! I'm well and hope you are too. Thank you for asking. I'd be glad to help. I have a couple of questions though.
 * First, do you want me to size the images down in byte size too?
 * What would that do? Is that good? Awadewit | talk  21:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Second, is it OK to crop the images of the pages so there is not a whole lot of white space such as this one and this one, of course still leaving white space around the text to show that it's a book page?
 * Yes - that is exactly what I was thinking. Awadewit | talk  21:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, some of the images have writing outside of the frame, such as this one, which I am assuming you may want to keep but not sure.
 * I definitely want to keep the text around the cartoon. Awadewit | talk  21:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Now about this one I have more doubt. Do you want me to cut it to just the painting itself, or leave some of the matte, even though (I) can't read the writing, which I'm assuming is the title, signature, date, or whatever info regarding the painting?
 * Cut until it is aesthetic - a sliver, perhaps? Awadewit | talk  21:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And this one. Do you want me to keep the writing, (the plate #) or crop it to the black outline? Or just trim it to the outside edge keeping the plate information top and info on the bottom?
 * Since it is Priestley's plate, we should probably keep the number, etc. Awadewit | talk  21:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, that was more then a couple. But, I wouldn't want to cut out something that is important to the article. Thanks! - Jeeny Talk 21:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being so conscientious! Awadewit | talk  21:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

PS: You can respond here, as it will be easier for both of us. You are on my watchlist. ;) - Jeeny Talk 21:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That helps a lot. The byte size isn't really important... well, it is, but I can judge so that we don't lose detail/clarity of the images. It can help reduce the byte size of the article too. Just a thought. I haven't begun working on them yet, but will soon. Cheers! - Jeeny Talk 21:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've done them. Please let me know if you approve, and please, do not be concerned with hurting my feelings or anything of the sort. I've been in the "business" and this is a piece of cake compared to what I did for 13 years. I do not consider critique or suggested changes on any of my "graphic" work as a insult, whatsoever! :) - Jeeny Talk 02:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * They look great. Can you take the "frame" off of the image in the infobox, as well? I think it looks sort of strange to frame the picture twice, don't you? Awadewit | talk  03:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought you liked the frame. LOL. I didn't. So I guess we're on the same mindset, at lease on this issue. :) I'll remove the frame. Yay! - Jeeny Talk 04:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much - that frame bugged me every time I opened the page. As always, let me know when you need any wiki-help. Awadewit | talk  05:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

karmichael
Thats all right

but what does this mean

"much of it needs to be massaged into a more eloquent formulation"

Special Windler talk 04:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are some specific areas to work on:
 * Many of your sentences are too short. Having a long string of short sentences creates a feeling of unsophisticated writing (whatever the information says). That is just the feeling that the reader gets from it.
 * Many of your sentences are structured similarly so that the article seems repetitive when actually it is not. These sentences usually employ "subject-verb" constructions such as "Hunt played" or "Hunt was." Variety in sentence construction is always good.
 * It is not always clear why the article is moving from one topic to another. Paragraphs do not always have one coherent idea that is stated at the outset; sentences do not lead into each other. Sometimes the article reads like a series of facts. You might want to think about the article as a "story" that you are trying to tell - what is its overarching structure? That way you can write towards events in Hunt's life and career. It will give the article direction - the reader will know why s/he is reading about particular events because you will be contextualizing it as you go along. Does that make sense? It is quite abstract, I know.
 * There are also smaller issues such as diction - you often use colloquial language (ex: contractions, slang and informal words such as "biggest" in "biggest influences.") Awadewit | talk  05:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the advice. Special Windler  talk 05:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

General suggestions for Mary Martha Sherwood
Hi Awadewit! :)

I'll keep thinking about Mary Martha Sherwood, but here are some general suggestions from a random lay-reader


 * Maybe go easier on abstract nouns in the lead, such as "patriarchalism"? Maybe you could also combine the two examples, e.g., "such as prescribing social roles by gender and class" or some-such?
 * I agree that that sentence is a problem. It used to lack examples (to avoid just that problem) but then a reviewer suggested more details in the lead. I will keep working on it.


 * I'm really prone to writing, "It was X who did Y.", but it usually seems swifter and more direct to write "X did Y".
 * I do that as well - I will look for those sorts of verbiage problems.


 * I was taught never to start a sentence with "But..." or "And...". But I occasionally backslide on that. ;)
 * Such rules are often given to students (even in college) without any reasoning, unfortunately, which leads to the absolutes. It is justifiable and even elegant to begin sentences with those words. You just have to know what you are doing - I usually use "But" at the beginning of a sentence to emphasize a contradiction or juxtaposition of some sort. The reason for the rule is that most people cannot do so properly.


 * Perhaps the Literary analysis might be organized more ruthlessly chronologically? Or as a milder change, perhaps the section titles could be extended to strengthen the reader's sense of progression, e.g., "Victorianism of later works".  The reader seems to want a firm guiding hand in that section.
 * I'm not sure what a chronological analysis would add. I tried to discuss the sentimental novels (written first), then proceed to the evangelical and colonial themes (which occupy Sherwood's early to mid works) and end up with Victorianism (later works) to give a sense of chronology. But when someone writes 400 works, there isn't an overarching "story" that is easy to tell about their works. Also, the scholarship doesn't really say much about "progressions" or overarching changes in her writing, so arranging it that way would be difficult. I would not be able to tell a "chronological story," as it were. I will see what I can do with the section headings. I found this section very difficult to write because of the dearth of material; that is part of what is restricting my options, I think. Awadewit | talk  19:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hoping this helps, Willow 18:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Awadewit | talk  19:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mind if I paste these comments on the Sherwood peer review? Awadewit | talk  21:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all! I'm embarrassed to say that I didn't even know that a peer review had been opened. :( But that gives me the opportunity and reminder that I should congratulate you on Sarah Trimmer making it to FA status! :) Willow 22:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't be embarrassed - it is a long list over there. The only reason I know those things sometimes is because I use Outrigger's script which conveniently tells me the rating of an article under the title of the article and if it's in peer review, FAC, etc. Thanks on Trimmer - it was an easy FAC, thanks to your excellent help. Awadewit | talk  23:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)