User talk:Zatoichi26/Archive1

Barnstar
Congratulations on your new Barnstar!!!Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. You deserve it.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Tom Crean
Are you still active? If so, how about working on Tom and getting him to FA? I'll be happy to help. Brianboulton (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I don't think there need be any major additions to content. The prose will need some general refreshing, and I am prepared to do a full copyedit. We probably need more images, and need to check very carefully on the copyright status of those we have (I have often lost my best images at FAC). Web citations need proper formatting. I'll be able to give my attention to some of these things in a week or so. Let's see how it goes. Brianboulton (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm doing a few small things which I think need doing to the Crean article - don't worry, these won't pre-empt any of the revisions towards FA, just some initial tidying-up, really. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See article talkpage re images. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Che Guevara
Thanks for helping with the Che Guevara article! I see you found a reference for the nickname, to replace the French-language reference I had put in. Good! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I second the welcome, and hope you will stick around and make contributions/suggestions. Nice to meet you.   Red thoreau  (talk) RT 03:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Merlin on fence.jpg
It sure is a beautiful image. Can't we find out what species it is and move it to a better name? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I've asked people at the birds wikiproject, and there are apparently one or two other candidates about what species it could be. Once they've closed in on one, I suggest we just re-upload it on Commons. Images can't be directly renamed, you just re-upload them. I can take care of that if you like. On commons, they also have categories like "Unidentified species of genus X" and so on, which we could use provisionally. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've moved it to Image:Accipiter on fence.jpg on Commons, if that's okay with you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:Blackdown PJM1.JPG
Image:Blackdown PJM1.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Blackdown Tableland National Park View 1.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Pancakebay01JM.jpg
I've added some botanical details to the description of the image you uploaded Pancakebay01JM.jpg; please take a look to make sure I haven't made an error. I've been working on the Ammophila breviligulata article, and the grass in your photo seems to be that type. In the Pancake Bay Provincial Park article, the grass is identified as "dune grass". I think that's an error, but I thought I'd wait a bit to hear from you. Easchiff(talk) 11:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply; I liked your photo. I've corrected the caption at the Pancake Bay Provincial Park article; I think all the other descriptions of your photo are correct already. Note that I also pulled the month of the photograph off of its EXIF data . Lastly, one of us should transfer your photo to Commons eventually! Easchiff(talk) 02:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Date formats in Tom Crean
The article begins in Brit format (20 July 1877) but soon adopts American. Needs to be consistent throughout - your decision. Also, date linking is now generally discouraged. Shall I delink them? (Can you reply on my talkpage where I'll see it sooner - thanks) Brianboulton (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll delink dates and change to Brit format at the same time. Brianboulton (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Revised Crean paragraph
Please look at the revised paragraph I have inserted into the Terra Nova section of the Crean article. Mess about with it if you want. I have added the two new sources to the References, and deleted South with Scott. Leave any comments on the article's talk page, which I visit regularly, or on my own talkpage if you want to reach me quickly. Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Mountainous gales?
"Mountainous gales" is a very odd phrase - how can a gale be "mountainous"? In Frank Worsley's account Shackleton's Boat Journey there is a passage which reads: "At daybreak on May 9 we were wallowing in a terribly heavy cross sea, with a mountainous westerly swell setting us in on the coast before the furious westerly gale then raging". This may be Alexander's mountainous gale. Page ref is 142, pub. details are Random House, London 1999 ISBN 0-7126-6574-9. I'll contact you later about a few other prose issues on the Crean article. I shall be away for a week or so from 11 October, with only intermittent broadband contact. Brianboulton (talk) 09:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Tom Crean (explorer)
I have been dealing with the more routine issues in the peer review, but it would be good if you could visit. There are some things that need your attention. I have also asked an images reviewer for an audit of the images, since one or two may be dodgy by FA image standards. Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Tom Crean, image issues
I have had no responses from User:Elcobbola who is normally swift to reply to requests concerning images. I think he is temporarily away from Wikipedia. There seems to be a real dearth of image reviewers at FAC at the moment, which is holding up the promotion of some articles. So let me say what I think the image problems on the Crean article are, which may lead to FAC difficulties:-


 * Image:HMS Howe (1859).jpg It's a very old photo, lacks evidence of an original publication date that would confirm it as PD
 * Image:Crean & Bones.JPG Again, no information is given as to when this first published. It's from the Terra Nova expedition and is by Ponting, the expedition's photographer.  It was not published in Scott's Last Expedition, 1913, nor in Ponting's "The Great White South, published 1935. It appears to be an unpublished Ponting photo from the SPRI archives, and if that is so, you would need their permission to use it.
 * Image:Tom Crean2b.JPG Portrait by Hurley, dated 7 February 1915. I have had trouble with Hurley photographs before, since he lived until 1962. It all depends on when it was first published. I initially thought that it was from Shackleton's South, but it doesn't seem to be. This is such a good photo that it would be a shame to os it, so I'll keep searching for its publication details.
 * Image:Crean statue.jpg Photographs of 3D works by artists who didn't die at least 70 years ago can cause propblems, even when the photographer releases the photo into the public domain. I found this out myself, when working on the Captain Scott article. This may not be PD whatever the licence tag says.

What to do: I would be inclined to risk the HMS Howe image at FAC, but be prepared to lose it. I would regretfully withdraw Crean and Bones before FAC. I would be prepared to fight tooth and nail for the Crean mugshot, and I'd risk the statue, but be prepared to lose that, too. What I will do right now is have a scout round for alternatives that could be used if necessary, and I'll report back soon. Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"Hello, I am a fan of Antarctic exploration history and have read several books on Tom Crean's expeditions and life. I am a contributor to Wikipedia, which is a very large online encyclopedia project (2.6 million entries).  I am currently working on the Tom Crean article, and attempting to get it to "Featured Article" status.  This means it will be one of the best articles on Wikipedia, and will get featured on the main page.  You might be interested to read the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Crean_(explorer)
 * I have emailed the Tom Crean society (the one linked in the article), as follows. It's a shot in the dark, but we'll see what happens:

The reason I am writing is that Tom Crean related images which are not copyrighted are hard to come by. Images greatly enhance the Wikipedia articles. I wondered if you had access to any images, such as the Tom Crean birthplace photo on your web site, the South Pole Inn, etc, that could be used in the Wikipedia article? Wikipedia prefers "free" images (released by the author to public domain), or, use of "free documentation licenses" such as GNU (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License ). If you can help, I can explain this license in more detail.

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer!" Zatoichi26 (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That was an excellent idea, and it will be worth waiting a day or two to see if they respond. In the meantime, I have altered the copyright tag on the "mugshot" from PD-US, which was how you uploaded it, to PD-Australia, which brings it into line with the lead image. I'm keeping fingers crossed for both of these. In case things go wrong, I am going to scan in a couple of photos of Crean from my 1913 copy of Scott's Last Expedition. They are not particularly good photos, but they may come in handy if the better ones have to be ditched. I hope to do this on Friday (31st)It might also be necessary to make do with more general shots from Crean's expeditions, but let's see what the Tom Crean Society come up with.
 * Although I agree with what you say above, about how images enhance wikipedia articles, let's not forget that it's still the prose the counts most. Can you contact my talkpage if you hear anything from the Society? Brianboulton (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ok, will do. no response yet.Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Good and bad news on the images
Good news first. I have uploaded 2 Crean images: Image:pic1ski.jpg and Image:pic2ponys.jpg. Both of these are unimpeachably PD. The second scanned a little crookedly, but is still clear.

The bad news is that I have now established that the "mugshot" of Crean is copyright to the Royal Geographical Society. It may not be subject to Australian copyright law, but it is not PD in the USA. If the article goes to FAC with this image, it will not be possible to defend it, since we have no details of a publication before 1923. So, as an experiment, I have replaced it in the article with the "Crean with skis" image. It doesn't look too bad - what do you think?

I have used the Crean & Evans pony picture to replace Crean and Bones which, as I have said before, ia almost certainly not PD. In fact, its copyright appears to belong to SPRI. At the same time I have regretfully deleted the HMS Howe image, for want of publication details.

With these adjustments, only the lead image and the statue image are now questionable, the first because I haven't established for certain that it is not still under copyright, the second because of the 3D image rules. I don't know whether you have heard from the Tom Crean Society yet; if you don't want to wait further, my view is that the article could go to FAC with the images as they now are, with a preparedness to make further adjustments if the images I have mentioned become issues. After many FAC battles I have come to accept that in the end it is best to yield to the image specialists, rather than to fight lost causes.

Finally, when you feel ready to go to FAC, I think the article's chances will be strengthened if we make it a joint nomination, you as the first nominator and me as co-nom. My heavy involvement with the article precludes me from registering a support at FAC, and likewise, favourable comments made by me would be discounted. As a co-nom I can bring some beef to the nomination and can fully engage in the responses to points raised. If you are happy to do this, there is a procedure to be followed when making the nom, to ensure the co-nom is recognised, and I'll do this, if you like. So, let me know when you want to go forward, and how you would like to proceed. Brianboulton (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (A little later) Well, it seems that the lead image (Crean with pups) ia also a Royal Geographical Society copyright. The problem is, there is no evidence that Hurley published it before 1923. If he had done so, then it would be PD in the US, regardless of the RGS claim. But it is not among the Hurley photos published in Shackleton's South (1919). and the earliest publications of Hurley's own that I have found are from 1925. So we have to regard this image, along with the mugshot, as not PD.


 * I have not amended the article to take account of this somewhat depressing discovery, but what I would suggest is to promote the Crean on skis image to the lead, and replace it in the test with one of the "James Caird" images from Shackleton's South, either Image:LandingSGeorgia.jpg or Image:InSightOfOurGoal-NearingSouthGeorgia.jpg. Think about, and remember that it's still a great article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The over-riding PD factor is that images shoud be out of copyright in the US, where the Wikipedia servers are. This means we have to show either that the image was published before 1923, or that the "author" (Hurley) died more than 70 years ago. We do not have publication information, and Hurley died in 1962. I have had similar problems in other FACs and have ended up withdrawing images.


 * However, I think this should be your call. It is always possible that a loophole I've overlooked will allow the puppies image to be used, and we have a good fallback plan as described by you (Crean with skis to the lead, Nearing the shore to replace skis), if the lead image has to be withdrawn. So if that is your preference, I'd to agree to give it a try, as it stands now, and use the fallback if necessary.


 * You didn't respond to my offer of a co-nom. Perhaps you'd prefer to go it alone. If you do want to go ahead on a co-nom basis, and don't know the drill, just be sure you mention me as a co-nominator in your nomination statement, and I will come in and do the rest. Perhaps you would drop me a note on my talkpage as soon as you have made the nomination. Brianboulton (talk) 10:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have closed the Peer Review. If you want further help with the FAC nom drop me a quick line with the nom message you want to post and I can do that as well. Brianboulton (talk) 03:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you enter the template at the top of the article's talkpage and save, this will give you a window for opening the FAC. The archived peer review is not affected by this move. When you've completed and saved the fac window, you have to enter the article on the WP:FAC nomination page, per the instructions found on that page. As I say, call me if anything isn't clear. Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (Later) Can you deal with the nom now, or I'll be in trouble for closing the peer review prematurely! Brianboulton (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

FAC nom
This seems to have fixed itself, as we are both listed as noms. I suggest that, as a matter of procedure when dealing with reviewers' points, either of us fix the straightforward issues (punctuation, minor prose etc), but that if anything more substantial arises we first discuss it here, or on my talk page. The last thing we want is to be in open disagreement on the FAC page. Fingers crossed for a smooth ride. Brianboulton (talk) 08:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

FAC progress
Things are going very well so far. I am dealing with small routine fixes as they arise, but there are a few things that need your attention - see FAC page. If due to pressures of work, time etc you find you cannot deal with all of these, I don't mind stepping in, but it will be good for you to make an appearances on the FAC page.
 * Explain why we have a separate edition of Smith's book in "Further reading"
 * Resolved, thanks. Zatoichi26 (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Deal with some POV words and expressions. The ones that seem obvious now, although I didn't pick tham up on my last readthrough, are:-
 * "dramatic", in the lead. I suggest that this adjective could be removed.
 * Agreed, but can we replace "dramatic" with something else to show the gravity of these events? It was a little more than just a "series of events"... I went though a "series of events" since I got up this morning, none of which involved a 700 mile open boat crossing of the Antarctic ocean! I'll try to think of a word - something like "challenging" but I don't like that one.Zatoichi26 (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How about "hazardous"? I don't think that can be considered POV. Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In the "Discovery" section, the phrase "Just as importantly for men living and working in such close quarters..." reads very much like personal opinion, unless it can be specifically attributed to someone.
 * Agreed & removed. Zatoichi26 (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In the Terra Nova section "an uncharacteristic display of emotion" could be " a display of emotion". Another reviewer has also picked up on this point.
 * Removed. Zatoichi26 (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Same section, "Soon after turning back, the party was in trouble". Should be: "Soon after turning back they had lost the route to the Beardmore..."
 * Agreed, merged the sentences and replaced "to the Beardmore" with "onto the Beardmore", since they had no trouble finding the glacier, it was getting down onto it that was the problem. Zatoichi26 (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Same section, "Worse was to follow, for..." Suggest start sentence at "When the party was finally free..."
 * Changed. Zatoichi26 (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Same section: "With characteristic modesty, Crean always downplayed..." Suggest: "Crean modestly downplayed..."
 * Changed. Zatoichi26 (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ITAE section: "forced to trek" would be better as "required to trek".
 * Changed. Zatoichi26 (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "passive voice " issues. I haven't noticed any obvious overuse of the passive voice, but I'll look out for examples of this which mght require attention.
 * The only passive voice issue I found was "the hope was". Zatoichi26 (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * On the points you left on my talkpage:-
 * I have deleted the Further reading section as you suggest
 * Six internet sources give the wife's name as "Ellen" or "Nell", the common diminutive for Ellen. This (Ellen), This (Ellen), This (Nell), This (Nell), This (Nell), This (Nell). I don't think it's an issue, really - "Eileen" is the Irish form of Ellen. So I'd simply add a footnote to Ellen in the text: "Smith (p. xxx) uses the Irish form Eileen". That seems the shortest way of covering the matter.
 * Ok, I will add. Zatoichi26 (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * On ability v. attitude, I'd say that what we're really talking about is effectiveness in the field. Neither "ability and work ethic", or "attitude and work ethic" highlight this properly. What about changing the phrase to "effectiveness in the field"?

Brianboulton (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you ask me, I would just use "ability". Why use 4 words when 1 will do? I think ability is unambiguous and justified. Zatoichi26 (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, but the trouble is, people will say: "What abilities?". And we will say: "Well, he was very effective in the field" - so why not say so in the first place? It's actually replacing four words (ability and work ethic) with a different four. But this is one for you, though - I'll support whatever you decide.

Score to date: 4 supports, no opposes. That's good, this early in the review, but be ready for twists and turns. Later tonight (it's evening here in GB) I will go through the review, then leave a summary of anything that needs our attention on the article talk page. Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Re your "dramatic" sentence proposal, it is a very, very minor issue as to whether the word "dramatic" in this context is POV. I'd say it's marginal - 50:50. It doesn't call for any rewriting: we can leave the word, replace it, or remove it. If we can't find an agreeable replacement, I suggest we just leave it until someone raises a specific objection to it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm off to bed. I've left a list of current outstanding FAC points on the article talkpage. A very short list. Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

More FAC points
Look at article talkpage (or FAC) to check on points needing your attention. Brianboulton (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FA review looks pretty well finished now, and has gone exceptionally smoothly. Unless someone turns uo late with something unexpected and controversial, I'd expect a (favourable) decision within a day or two. Brianboulton (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FAC works at its own pace. We've only been on for seven days, which is less than most of my successful noms to date, we've had a lot of attention, which certainly doesn't always happen – some nominations languish for days and fail through lack of comment, and we have five supports, no opposes. It's gone smoothly and well, and we just have to be patient a little longer. Brianboulton (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Six supports now, by the way! Brianboulton (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

We've done it!
Tom Crean (explorer) is now a featured article. Congratulations indeed. Although I have worked with you in the later stages, you started this article and brought it to GA. So the heavy duty work was done by you, and you should have the main credit. You may feel you need a break, but when you return there is loads of Antarctic work to be done - maybe you should go solo next time? An article that definitely needs, and deserves, a lot of attention is Apsley Cherry-Garrard, which you did some editing on a year or so ago. Perhaps you'll be up for it? And Frank Wild, now there's a interesting character... Brianboulton (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(PS: And you saved your puppies, too!)


 * Let me know when you decide to return to harness. If you haven't got it already, get someone to give you Sara Wheeler's biography of Cherry-Garrard (Cherry: the Life of Apsley Cherry Garrard) 2001. All the best, Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My congratulations too - nicely done Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Well done
Congratulations on your first FA. From now on, it'll be a steady climb. :-) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  15:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)