User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 50

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Brianboulton. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Archive 55

thank you for your time for a careful read and comments! Hugh (talk) 06:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, hope things are going well with you. I just thought I'd leave a note, you said you were "Leaning to support" Prosperity theology at FAC after a few issues were cleared up. I think we've taken care of your concerns if you'd like to revisit. Thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Peer review/One for the Road (Cheers)/archive1, you said that references look messy. In other words, MLA is messy for Wikipedia? --George Ho (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what this comment means. Brianboulton (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

all right, I must re-phrase: what do you mean "messy"? Is MLA format messy? If not, how and why "messy"? --George Ho (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Who said "messy"? I said: "You also appear to need help with the correct formatting of references." The most obvious fault is that the bare urls (web addresses) need to be incorporated into the references, not shown separately. I suggest you study Wikipedia:Citing sources, which you may find helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

But that is how MLA style is done, although URLs are optional. The printable version separates URLs. How do you explain that? Also, the guideline you referred may seldom mention MLA. --George Ho (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Do as you wish, I'm done. Don't post here any more. Brianboulton (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. You did a great peer review on Birth control movement in the United States a couple of months ago. It is now up for FAC. If you could do a review, or just supply some comments, that would be wonderful. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Fear not, I had noticed! I have numerous chores vying for attention at the moment, but this will have some priotity and I'll be there within a day. Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Brian,

This is a notice to all users who currently have at least one open peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review. Because of the large number of peer review requests and relatively low number of reviewers, the backlog of PRs has been at 20 or more almost continually for several months. The backlog is for PR requests which have gone at least four days without comments, and some of these have gone two weeks or longer waiting for a review.

While we have been able to eventually review all PRs that remain on the backlog, something had to change. As a result of the discussion here, the consensus was that all users are now limited to one (1) open peer review request.

If you already have more than one open PR, that is OK in this transition period, but you cannot open any more until all your active PR requests have been closed. If you would like someone to close a PR for you, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Peer review. If you want to help with the backlog, please review an article whoe PR request is listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog/items. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there an Italian speaker who can translate this line (from Monteverdi's Ninth Book of Madrigals)? Much appreciated if you can. Brianboulton (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"How sweetly the breeze blows today" would be my attempt, but my minimal Italian doesn't qualify me as a "speaker" by any means. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for that, Nikki. That makes perfect sense. Brianboulton (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to call your attention to these edits:

• Ernest Shackleton
• Nimrod Expedition

I've reverted the first as promotional; the second (which are earlier edits and more verbose) I paused at. These are all the article edits that user has made. I think the whisky deserves maybe two sentences, not five paragraphs. Up to you… Alarbus (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up on these. What is in the Shackleton article now is OK and, I think, proportionate. What has been added to the Nimrod article is way over the top. It was not an expedition aim to test the endurance of whisky in low temperatures, nor to provide challenges for 21st century whisky blenders; to give five paragraphs to a mildly interesting but incidental story from the expedition is ridiculous. I suggest replacing all this guff with a simple factual statement per the Shackleton article. Will you do this? I will follow up on the talk page. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I'll check the talk page, before I dive in. Alarbus (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Since I've been doing so much additional work on the Wong Kim Ark article in the last week or so, it's been suggested that I should ping the previous supporters and "ask them to revisit with an eye towards whether they're still satisfied" with the article now. Be sure to check the FAC's talk page (here), since the lengthy exchanges involving Calliopejen1 and Savidan were moved there to reduce clutter on the main page. Thanks. — Richwales 19:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Brian. While reviewing your nomination I noticed that you give excellent prose reviews at FAC. I was wondering if you could take a look at my own neglected nomination, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Cindy (1993)/archive1. Any comments at all would be much appreciated. Thanks, Auree ★ 01:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope to be doing an FAC trawl today/tomorrow, now that WP:Peer review is more or less under control, and I'll definitely pick up on Cindy. Brianboulton (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Heyo, Brian. A belated thanks for the comments, which have now been addressed. Cheers, Auree ★ 00:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like your opinion on something. I've written the majority of what you see at musical instrument. One day I'd like to bring it to FA standard. I'm still miles away, but I'm trying to come to grips with a crucial content question: Is it desirable include the human body as a musical instrument, thus putting things like "voice" into the scope of the article? My major sources completely ignore the body and define musical instruments as external devices, but I keep glancing sidelong at this big ugly book on my shelf (Musical Instruments: A Worldwide Survey of Traditional Music-making by Lucie Rault) that devotes a whole section to the human body as a musical instrument. She is definitely in the minority in this regard. Thoughts? --Laser brain (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a thought if you're interested, which is that if Rault is seriously suggesting that the human body can in any sense be considered an "instrument", then she ought to seek psychiatric help; the idea of playing someone's body is just ... well, unsavoury. But no doubt Brian will be able to provide a more diplomatic perspective. Malleus Fatuorum 04:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you. I've got to draw the line somewhere, and I'm certain it's somewhere between the hydraulophone and the skin flute. --Laser brain (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand .... Malleus Fatuorum 05:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would have mentioned the Pétomane, before Malleus stole my thunder (so to speak – one must choose words carefully in this thread). I don't know Rault's work – never heard of her, in fact – but my instinctive reaction is to say that although the human body cannot be considered a musical instrument, the voice of course can be. And voice training involves more of the body than the vocal chords – lungs, diaphragm etc, so maybe that's what Rault is getting at? In any event, the presence in the Conservatoires of departments and professorships entirely devoted to the voice gives credence to the idea that it can be considered an instrument. Donald Jay Grout's dated but still interesting A History of Western Music has some very good chapters on the part played by the voice in the development of music, particularly within the church tradition. Brianboulton (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• WP:OR alert: I have often thought that the singing styles endemic or peculiar to specific cultures were in fact attempts to reproduce vocally the sounds their local musical instruments produced. E.g., that atonal, twangy, nasal singing in Chinese opera which many Westerners find so odd seems like an imitation of the erhu. [Also see "Zombies" by the Cranberries] Maybe that's something for the article about singing. Or maybe not. :-) Ling.Nut3 (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Rault writes at some length about how early musical instruments of all kinds were really just attempts to emulate animal sounds, and not actually to make music. The book is terrible—it reads as if it was written by the love-child of Walt Whitman and Janice Joplin—but she's considered an authority on ethnomusicology. Sounds like there's no easy answer to this question. --Laser brain (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible OR. I would also at least mention those instruments or even dances where the body is used (and required) to make or amplify sound - so the Jew's harp uses the jaw and mouth, Juba dance or ham-boning uses various parts of the body as a percussive instrument, and even playing the spoons and tap dancing requires a human body. Of course most muiscal instruments require a human to play them, though I suppose a robot musician is possible. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm hoping to go for FAC at the end of this week, but if you are unable to look at the last bit of the article before then, I will hold on until you get a chance. Don't worry if you are too busy. On a related note, I've put yet another Yorkshire cricketer up at PR (Hedley Verity), but I perfectly understand if the thought of one more Yorkshire cricketer makes you swear violently and you want to give this one a miss! (I've got some non-Yorkshiremen in the pipeline too) As usual, thanks for everything. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are following the FAC, but several people have commented now if you want another look at any point. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for dropping by at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Radzymin (1920)/archive1. I replied to your comments there. //Halibutt 10:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• - bump - //Halibutt 10:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent review. You made some good suggestions, which I will implement. Mgrē@sŏn 22:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have responded to and/or implemented your comments and suggestions. When you have a chance, your feedback would be appreciated. Thanks! Mgrē@sŏn 15:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

	Not lost
	Thank you for your profound revelation of Monteverdi's "lost operas", you give us the background, your plots are convincing, the staging seems almost visible, - not lost after all, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That is one of the nicest tributes I have received in my 4½ years here. Very much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback here. I took your suggestion. Jesanj (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, you may be interested to know that Palin said this: "In October 2010, Palin defended her use of the term in a Newsmax.com interview. Palin said she '... spoke a lot about the rationing of care that was going to be a part of Obamacare, and, you know, I was about laughed out of town for bringing to light what I call death panels, because there's going to be faceless bureaucrats who will—based on cost analysis and some subjective idea on somebody's level of productivity in life—somebody is going to call the shots as to whether your loved one will be able to receive health care or not. To me, death panel. I called it like I saw it, and people didn't like it.' ^[82]" She seems to have her cake (saying at one point it was figurative) and eat it too (appearing to repeat it again in a literal fashion). O politicians and political terms... Thanks again. Jesanj (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just noticed that you haven't added alt text to most of the images for the Lost Monteverdi Operas article. An oversight, I'm sure, as you're usually more scrupulous than most of us in that regard. (I haven't cluttered up the FAC page with this peripheral bleat.) Tim riley (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I am not particularly scrupulous about alt text. It has long ceased to be a FAC requirement, rightly so in my view. I am unconvinced that the often artificial and clumsy descriptions that pass for alt text (e.g. "Man with bushy beard and dark suit sits with arms folded facing to left of camera. There is a vase of flowers in the background") are of any real value. If someone feels really strongly on the issue, I might add the text as a gesture; in the case of the lost operas article, trying to make meaningful alt captions from the paintings of old masters seems a particularly fruitless pursuit – though I suppose we could mention Bacchus's bowling action. Brianboulton (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw that Monteverdi's lost operas just got its well-deserved gold star - congratulations! I only wish I were as eloquent as Gerda Arendt (above) but share her sentiments completely. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

May I add my congratulations, too. The article is Wikipedia at its most valuable, because people won't find the information anywhere else online, not even in Grove (and I did check, despite having a note from my mother asking for me to be excused Monteverdi). Bravo! Tim riley (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather a pity about Fred's anniversary, but no matter. I'll put Ferrier in my calendar to remind you. When should you start making noises about getting her on the front page?

At a complete tangent, if you have any views on the acceptable length for an article, particularly a GA, could you look in here and advise me? Or, if not, can you think of a suitable Wikipedian for me to pester? Tim riley (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Re Ferrier, the birthday is 22 April (two days after A. Hitler, and one day before W. Shakespeare), so there's time enough. I forget the TFA nomination rules, but I think as it's a centenary I can't nominate until a couple of weeks beforehand. I'll check. On the College of Arms I have added an opinion to your request. Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

On the last, thank you very much! On the other, I'll put it in my diary to nag you in mid-March. Tim riley (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

After putting this article up for PR last autumn I got sidetracked, but have now returned to it, aided and abetted by well-known suspects. If you have time, perhaps you would care to look in at the FAC page and add your thoughts on the candidacy. Tim riley (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of Tom Driberg know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 15, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 15, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

100px|Tom Driberg in the 1930s

Tom Driberg (1905–1976) was a British journalist and politician who was a Labour Party MP between 1942 and 1974. On retirement he was raised to the peerage, with the title of Baron Bradwell. After his death, allegations were published about his long-term role as an MI5 informant, or a KGB agent, or both; however, the extent of his involvement with these agencies remains uncertain. Driberg never held ministerial office, although he rose to senior positions within the Labour Party and was a popular and influential figure in left-wing politics for many years. After leaving Christ Church, Oxford in 1927 he joined the Daily Express and in 1933 began the "William Hickey" society column; he later contributed regularly to various left-leaning journals. As a biographer his subjects included the press baron Lord Beaverbrook and the fugitive British diplomat Guy Burgess. Driberg was a practising homosexual whose risky and often brazen behaviour frequently shocked or amused his colleagues. His friends included respected figures from literature and politics alongside outsiders such as the black magic practitioner Aleister Crowley and the Kray twins. Throughout his life he maintained an unvarying devotion to Anglo-Catholicism. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton, thanks for the peer review for Blackford County, Indiana. I realize this article is a little bit longer than most, and appreciate you taking the time to read it. I have altered the Geography section to move the image map "higher", as you suggested. I have also made sure there were citations in all of the notes. I have also fixed the prose in two places where a word or name appears too many times in a few sentences, and plan to review the text a little more. Any more comments would always be appreciated.TwoScars (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Brian. I'm currently a little more than halfway through the Life section in my copy edit of the Tchaikovsky article and am wondering what to do about the Music section. Others have complained, unhappy or unsatisfied with it, and to a point I can see what they're saying. My problem is that, his stylistic range and development were wide and deep, leaving a path almost as long and convoluted as the composer's life. I'm reading your Gustav Mahler article to get some ideas but any suggestions or recommendations would be extremely welcome at this point. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I will read through the music section as it is now, and try and come up with some suggestions. Remember, though, I am by no means an expert on Tchaikovsky; most of what I know about him has been from reading and reviewing this and related articles! Brianboulton (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem—I'll be happy with whatever suggestions you make. My main concern at this point is to get the music section on a par with comparable sections of other FA composer articles. Again, thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hope you're okay, Brian—haven't heard from you in a while. I've stripped in the first half or two-thirds of the new Music section for Tchaikovsky, which covers his style in general. (The rest, which will include his music's reception, is still in progress in my sandbox.) If you have time (and I get the impression this may be a pretty big "if"), please take a look. I think it may be a dramatic improvement over what was there before. Jonyungk (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've been distracted elsewhere, on and off the encyclopedia. But I'll find time to look at the revised section on Monday, and I'll try and cobble together a few notes for you. Brianboulton (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Looking forward to your comments. BTW, all but one sub-section of the Music section is now in, so you'll get a clear idea of the overall shape of the article. Jonyungk (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I've had to put Wikipedia:The Core Contest on hold for the time being until I can get a chapter interested in funding the vouchers/prizes, as this microgrant discussion has gone dormant (and not sure how far to push it). Rather busy anyway. Knackered actually. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Me, too. Utterly bollocked, actually, but trudging on, just... Brianboulton (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Me three. Anyone want my cold/flu/whatever that's dragging my butt down? (We won't even discuss the on-wiki dramah...) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, WMUK have agreed to fund some vouchers (yippee!) so I'll set the dates from March 10 to 31, and write a blurb for the signpost and village pump etc. We're in business...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Woweeee! Brianboulton (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Brian, I was wondering if you'd be interested in reviewing an article, George Went Hensley, that I have at FAC now. I know you're real busy, so it's not a problem if you can't get to it, but I think we have it in decent shape and I've been told that it's a pretty entertaining read so I thought I'd drop a note. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I know you're always swamped with review requests, but I thought you might find this one of particular interest: The article on Dan Leno, the British musical comedy and music hall star of the 1880s and 1890s, has recently been much expanded and is headed towards FA consideration. If you have time, please be so kind as to take a look at the article and comment at this Peer Review. Thanks for any assistance! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that does look like a really interesting article. Probably more fun than mine even. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I currently have about five requests for peer reviews, plus some articles awaiting attention at FAC, plus the PR backlog, so I am fairly snowed under...I will try and get to them all, but please be patient as it may take a little time. I also have Driberg as TFA tomorrow, and have to do some research work on my own articles (which is likely to be held in suspended animation for a while). Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you really are a popular guy. Feel free to disregard my request if you have too much going on, a couple other experienced reviewers have turned up so it won't fail from lack of attention. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey there Brianboulton, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:Brianboulton.

• See a log of files removed today here.
• Shut off the bot here.
• Report errors here.
• If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI. There are two sources with the same name in use on this article:

• <ref name= Foot>Foot, Michael: "Postscript", pp. 251–55 in Driberg (1977).</ref>
• <ref name= Foot>{{cite journal|last= Foot|first= Michael|title= Chronicler of the Wicked|journal= The Guardian|date= 26 April 1990|pages= 26}}</ref>

There is also a <ref name= Foot/>. This is resulting in all three being references to Foot in Driberg and the Guardian reference being hidden and not associated with any text. These need the names adjusted to discrete values and the "/" made to associate with whichever is appropriate. Alarbus (talk) 05:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC) (I've also fixed some invalid ISBNs)

• Fixed now. Brianboulton (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

  Great. I'd been looking at the upcoming main page stuff. Alarbus (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Name one (or at most two) PR's (historical related) you'd want me to review ... I'm feeling slightly better but not up to a lot of stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, that would be great!. The most obvious history-related article awaiting PR is James G. Blaine ("the continental liar from the State of Maine") if you can be doing with failed 19C Republican presidential candidates. Adolf Galland is MilHist which may be even less your forte. Invasions of the British Isles is nowhere near review-ready. So the choice looks like Blaine, or... er, Blaine. If you should do it, I'd ask the eds not to call him a "two-time" Sec of State, since "two-timing" rather suggests double-dealing. Brianboulton (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I dropped a "concur" note on the Invasions article - starting on Blaine now. Galland might or might not happen, likely not but you never know. What's next on your own plate, anyway? I saw the lost (i'm still crushed over their loss (snickers)) operas passed... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Well, I've more or less done L'Arianna, but I'm not pushing that for review yet as I believe his many fans deserve a break from Signor Monteverdi. So I'm working on a more popular opera (Carmen, you know, "DAH dee-di dah, dah dah di-diddle dee") and also on expanding the article on Cosima Wagner. However, I am looking for a suitable subject for a non-musical article, just to break out of the groove. Maybe a pope or a politician. Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Feeling modern? Medieval? Ancient? Pope Gregory I could use some love. Charlemagne is also lacking quite a bit. Of course, if you wanted to stick with the more "artsy" stuff - Song of Roland. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the peer review of Egyptian mythology. I'll probably close it in a few days—I was hoping that someone from WikiProject Mythology would point out some sources on comparative mythology I could use, but it doesn't look like anyone will—and then start implementing the suggestions from the review. I have a couple of questions. If "Definition" shouldn't be called that because no definition is agreed upon, would "Attempts at definition" work as a section heading? And the conflicting tenses in several sentences come from the rule at WP:TENSE that fiction, including mythology, should be described in the present tense. I grasp the principle there, but in practice it can get confusing. I wrote about ancient Egyptian beliefs in the present tense while the real-life actions of the Egyptians (including the act of believing things) was written in past tense. If you can suggest a consistent way of applying the present/past distinction, I would greatly appreciate it. A. Parrot (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"Attempts at definition" would work well in my view. The matter of tenses I will leave to you. Most of the other points I raised at the peer review are fairly straightforward (a link here, a prose tweak there), and I imagine could quite easily be implemented without waiting for someone from the proect. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but there are areas of the topic, like those that User:Redtigerxyz pointed out, that I wish I had the sources to cover. Anyway, thanks for the reply, and all the industrious reviewing you do. A. Parrot (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your previous comments. Iv now improved upon the lede and references. Do take a look and let me know how you think the article is shaping now. Cheers, Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 09:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I have had a quick look. The article looks better, but there are still prose concerns unresolved from the peer review. For example we still have "Anthony de Mello, the Secretary of BCCI from its inception until 1937, also served the secretary of CCI from 1933 to 1937"; the word "as" is required before "the secretary of CCI" to make sense of the sentence. In the same sentence we have both "Secretary" and "secretary". Others of my PR points have not been acted on, and a glance at the article reveals further problems, e.g. "The match Australia and Mumbai..." (needs "between" before "Australia"). A thorough copyedit is necessary, from an experienced cricket writer with prose skills. Until that happens, the article will struggle to rise above "C", which is where I would grade it now. Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Brianboulton. The article needs someone from outside the Indian circle to take a look. After 1 outsider review, the article can move in the right direction before a FAC and the PR can be closed. Please take a look. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think I can take this on; I have too much on my plate at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

		The Helping Hands Barnstar
		Dear Dank, Brianboulton, Ealdgyth, Ed, Jimfbleak, Nikkimaria, and Noleander, - I could not have brought the Mark Satin bio up to Featured Article status without the unique contributions (not to mention tact and patience) of each of you. I am probably two to three times your age, and not at home with this technology. But working with you gave me a glimpse of a beautiful 21st century world in which individual initiative, collectively honed, can produce socially (in)valuable work that is also first-rate. God bless! - Babel41 (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are three times my age, you are the world record-holder by a very considerable margin. But thank you for your generous tribute, and congratulations on bringing this fine aticle to featured status. I look forward to its future mainpage appearance. Brianboulton (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ssilvers is largely responsible for getting the Edward German article up to the substantial B class article that now exists. I haven't had much to do with it, being, in truth, pretty lukewarm about German's music. German always strikes me as more in Eric Coates's camp than in Sullivan's. I have got it inked in on my wall calendar to nag you in the middle of next month about the Ferrier anniversary. Tim riley (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I was out of town for the past 36 hrs - I expect to deal with this later today. Ben MacDui 13:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone has changed the title of Monteverdi's lost operas to Claudio Monteverdi's lost operas – no reason, no talkpage discussion. This is entirely unnecessary; Monteverdi does not require a first name any more than, for instance, does Mozart or Beethoven. I want to revert this change, but the "move" mechanism won't accept the former name. There must be a way of doing this - will someone either do it, or show me how? I will then raise the issue with the editor concerned. Brianboulton (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Technically, the move target has to be deleted first since it already exists; this requires admin tools. --Laser brain (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have asked te editor concerned to raise the issue on the talkpage if he thinks there is a true case for change. Brianboulton (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Do we know the exact number of strings needed in each section? I try to found it in scores, but nothing is said, apart from some information regarding Double-basses using low C string. Can you help? Answer please in my Spanish talkpage if you don't mind. Thanks in advance, OboeCrack (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to do a review of Edmund Sharpe. I had thought of inviting your involvement, but when I looked at your interests on the Volunteers section, they did not seem to clearly fit this article. Anyway I hope you enjoy reading about a rather interesting and, maybe under-recognised, person. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I did that "volunteers" section bit years ago. Basically, if I can find the time I will review anything that looks to have a bit of meat in it. It's all part of my education. Brianboulton (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments and helpful advice. I will continue to work on the article and let you know when I pluck up courage to submit it as a FAC. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The submitter for the Rajinikanth peer review doesn't feel it has been sufficiently commented on to be archived, and I have to agree with the submitter. Could it be moved onto the backlog page? Thanks! Allens (talk | contribs) 14:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. It has not been moved from the backlog page. However, since it's been there for five weeks without much activity, my advice to the nominator is to look around for a reviewer among editors with similar interests and ask for amore detailed review. Brianboulton (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't? I thought it was - the bot tried to remove it, which was reverted by the renewer. Oh. Oops. Allens (talk | contribs) 17:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have now reviewed it and removed it from the backlog. Finetooth (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Brian, I was wondering if there was any chance you could comment on the FAC, as it could do with a few comments at the moment, and as you've reviewed it before would be a chance to see if it's in better shape. I'll understand if you're busy, so no worries if you can't a look at it. cheers NapHit (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Had you seen this? "The Britons of Distinction stamps celebrate ten distinguished individuals from the realms of science and technology, architecture, politics and the arts who have all made a major contribution to British society." One of them is Kathleen Ferrier, which reminded me of the article. Possibly worth including? Mentioned by other sources as well, if you want something better than that website. Carcharoth (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

And Fred Delius, too! I have added an appropriate (brief) line to each article; thanks for bringing this to my attention. Brianboulton (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I just nominated an article you peer reviewed, Alexis Bachelot, at FAC. Again, understandable if you have too much on your plate. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, me again. I wanted to thank you for all your help on Prosperity theology at peer review and FAC. It was promoted to featured status yesterday--I'm pretty happy to have my first featured article. You were a great help getting the article up to the standards! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• A well-deserved promotion, I'd say, and assuredly not your last FA. I'll try and get to Bachelot but it may take me a day or two. Brianboulton (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Carmen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hugh MacDonald (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

A coincidence about the stamp. Did you see that an editor briefly added an image of a Delius stamp to the article, before retribution, like a poiséd hawk, came swooping down upon the wrong-doer about three nanoseconds later?

I have Georg Solti up at PR if you have time and disposition to look in. Absolutely no rush. Tim riley (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, good one! I saw him conduct, many times, when he was with the LPO, as I'm sure you did. Good Mahler man, too; his recording of the Eighth was my first hearing of that work. It will be a pleasure to review. But I wish he had added an "e" to his name so we didn't have to call him "Gay-orrg". Brianboulton (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well he wanted to be "Sir George" when he became a Brit, but the Home Office was obstructive (so what else is new). He insisted on having his name pronounced as "George". Tim riley (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Brianboulton. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Archive 55