User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 95

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 90

←

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

Archive 96

Archive 97

→

Archive 100

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bessie Braddock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scarborough. 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) 09:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brian, I hope all's well. I have finished looking through all your comments at PR, and I found that they have been very helpful in improving the article. I accepted the majority of your suggestions, but for those that I feel they are unsuitable for some reason, I have provided explanations....

I understand that you are familiar with the FAC process, and would like to hear your general views and thoughts on the prospect of this article going for FAC :) It does not matter whether you think of it optimistically or passively – it"ll be nice to hear from you :) Please do not feel obliged if you do not wish to provide any further comments though. In any case, I"ll probably leave the article as it is for another month or so, before I put it up on FAC in early December, if there are no further major outstanding issues. Mr Tan (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll give a considered view next week, when I get back from my short break. Brianboulton (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I shall be away until Sunday 8th November. Please leave messages here if you want me to do something when I get back. Brianboulton (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Brian, how are you? I have been working on the so-called "King of Con-men", Gregor MacGregor, and now have his article at peer review here. As always, any advice you could give would be very much appreciated. Thanks and I hope you're well, —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm back, and ready to go again after the delights of Rome. Got a bit of a backlog of chores, and while I was away my laptop died, so I'm relying on an old back-up plus my wife's machine (when she lets me). So progress may be a little slow for a while, but I will definitely look at the con-man king within a day or two. All good wishes. Brianboulton (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

You have a day or so to get your breath back, as I am signed up to join MacG's PR, which is next on my to-do list. Of course, given the subject of that article, I may be lying to you. Tim riley talk 14:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This is just a note to let the participants at the MacGregor peer review know that the article is now up at FAC here. Cheers and I hope you're having a great weekend. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You asked me to give the draft a preliminary once-over with a peer reviewer's eye. I've done so, and to my mind you have the structure and the balance right, the political aspects are covered with exemplary even-handedness, and the Boulton prose is the usual pleasure. The pictures are a bugger, naturally, but you can't conjure free images out of thin air. The sources are as good as we are going to get – I speak as one who has bothered the authorities at the British Library on this topic. En passant, the MP for her neighbouring constituency lived a few doors down the road from the Rileys in the 1960s, and he (Wally Alldritt) spoke of her with real respect, and – I think – affection. The apocryphal Churchill story doesn't seem to me to warrant mention in the main text: a footnote will suffice, but I'm getting ahead of myself – I'll have a clutch of minor quibbles when you get the article to the formal PR, but it's in good shape, meseems. (Meanwhile, you might, in the opening caption, admit that Lime Street is in Liverpool.) I hope you found Messrs Urbi and Orbi in good shape last week. – Tim riley talk 14:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this provisional kind assessment which is much appreciated. When I read the article on my iPad on the plane, I wasn't too impressed (more work needed, Boulton), but I'll get going again this week. One thing I meant to ask you about is the matter of what to call her. Because so much of her career is tied in with that of her husband, I don't think "Braddock" will do. To spell out "Bessie Braddock" each time would be tortuous. So for the moment I've followed most biographical sources and stuck to "Bessie", but am open to persuasion if there is a better alternative. Brianboulton (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Disillusion with your own writing at first rereading is a v. familiar experience, and we all get it now and then. Rule One is to ignore it and wait for a second rereading after a few days, at which, with any luck, the unnoticed virtues come into focus and the imagined major vices become visibly minor. As to nomenclature, when reading the article I didn't notice what you called the biographee – which is the best possible sign that the author has got it right. When there is a husband around, one simply can't surname the wife (or, mutatis mutandis, father/daughter, as we all agreed when you were writing Imogen Holst up). Chez RVW – who (meaningful cough) is now at FAC – I experimented with calling Ursula "Wood", but it didn't work. As you rightly say, the Braddock biographical sources (why, one wonders, does the ODNB do Jack so much prouder than Bessie?) use the given name, just as the Holst and VW ones do. If you remember, you briefly tried surnaming Imogen in the paras about the years after Gustav's death but it didn't work, and Braddocking Bessie after Jack's death won't work either: the reader will still associate the surname with the dead man rather than the living woman. Bessie her throughout would be my advice. Tim riley talk 14:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I shall not peek until told, but I've had the same experience. It's hard for me to go over what I've written when I've written it, I usually wait until the next day. Or sometimes longer. And I'm convinced the article will never end (but there, the feeling is shared by the reviewers!) Ah, anyway. I hope you had a good time in Rome, but once you are back up to speed, could I ask you to look in at George Mason, presently at PR? He's a local boy here.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI, Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 25, 2015) is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. No need for you to do anything just yet - the discussion should resolve in time for TFA day, and should hopefully settle the issue for a while one way or the other. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 13:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. The article was previously nominated for deletion 6 years ago, and survived. I selected it because it's the Hamence centenary, though I must confess, as one reasonably knowledgeable about cricket and cricketers, that I had never heard of Hamence, and the article rather indicates why this is so. I won't weep tears if it has to be replaced as TFA. Brianboulton (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Cliftonian; User:Wehwalt

• Gregor MacGregor 10,400 words
• George Mason 11,475 words

In view of the lengths of these articles and my other commitments (plus I'm working on a clapped-out borrowed laptop until my own gets replaced next week) these reviews will have to be done in stages over a number of days. Brianboulton (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Very understandable. There is no hurry and thank you for whatever you can do.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Bessie braddock MP.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

...GBS, whose present article is a disgrace and needs an overhaul with FAC in mind? It is currently a GA, but needs downgrading for its shocking lack of references. I shall put him on my to-do list, and if you would be interested in collaborating on him in due course (no timetable in mind yet) I'd be v. pleased. Quite understand if not, naturally. He isn't everyone's cup of tea, I know. Tim riley talk 11:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I am very interested in Shaw, particularly the political stuff, and would be very happy to collaborate. My shelves are a bit light as far as the biographical/literary elements are concerned, but if we can work out a viable plan for the division of labour, that can easily be remedied. As to timing: I have Bessie B about ready for peer review, and have just started on a music (gasp! sensation!) article, an investigation of Handel's lost Hamburg operas. That will fill me up until the new year, at which point I'll be ready to give my main attention to GBS. How does that sound? Brianboulton (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds excellent. We can discuss the modus operandi in more detail nearer the time, but my first thought is that we might set up a chronological skeleton and I flesh it out with personal life and theatre stuff and you put in the political material. SchroCat and I divided up work on the Olivier article along analogous lines, with him doing private life and cinema and me simultaneously doing early years and theatre, and both chipping in on the reputation section; that worked harmoniously and I think effectively. I have the Holroyd biography, the complete plays and all the Corno di Bassetto writings, which will keep me in reading material over Christmas! Tim riley talk 08:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

As discussed:

• From "George Handel, the surgeon, seems to have hated music..." down to "the Lutheran church at Halle." pp. 12–13
• The paragraph beginning "Three days before his seventeenth birthday..." p. 14
• The section beginning: "Keiser was a man of remarkable genius..." and ending "no sense of the fashionable Italianate taste". pp. 18–20.

The book is in smallish format, similar to A5, but not as wide, which is why the last extract spreads across three pages. It was good to be at the British Library this morning: the atmosphere of learning and enlightenment did something to raise the spirits in the face of the inhumanity and wickedness manifested in Paris yesterday.Tim riley talk 12:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Most grateful. I'll need some bibliographical details (publisher, year etc) as I believe the book has run to more than one edition. I concur entirely with what you say re Paris – horrifying and depressing. Brianboulton (talk) 12:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. It is the Duckworth 1934 edition in that publisher's "Great Lives" series, OCLC 2413442. Link to WorldCat details: here. Tim riley talk 12:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Brian, would you be willing to take a look at the Andrew Sledd FAC? You are familiar with my handiwork from past GA reviews, and by all accounts the Sledd article is in pretty good shape. Any time you could spend with it would be greatly appreciated. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll do what I can, but there may be a delay; I have two lengthy reviews in hand at the moment, and other stuff of my own that I'm trying to work on. In the meantime, may I suggest that you reduce the size of that enormous image of the passageway through Sledd Hall? It really is disproportionate. Otherwise, at a glance, the article looks in pretty good shape. Brianboulton (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian, and understood. With certain in-demand reviewers, there may be a wait list. And, yes, the size of the mentioned photo has now been reduced. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, Brian. It's a better article for it. Let me know what else I can do to help with Bessie. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I've just glanced at your Bessie review for which many thanks – some thought-provoking stuff there. I hope to take a closer look this evening, if not, tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking ahead, what is required for a newly promoted FA to qualify as a future TFA? It appears that most existing FAs have already been listed as TFAs, and another 30 or so are pending. This is new to me, having only submitted newly minted GAs for DYK in the past. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Of around 4,600 featured articles, there are about 1,200 that have yet to appear on the main page – this figure is broadly stable, since new FAs are created at about the same rate as they are used at TFA. Any FA, whether newly promoted or not, qualifies as a potential TFA; in November I have scheduled articles promoted 5 or 6 years ago, and others newly promoted. The procedure for nominating is spelt out on the WP:TFAR page, and you are welcome to nominate any featured article that hasn't previously appeared on the main page. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll trim this one a bit, Brian, it's at 1225 chars and I aim for 1150 (though several things can push the count up to 1200). Feel free to revert or fiddle with it. - Dank (push to talk) 01:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Please go ahead - it's what you do best. Brianboulton (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

(note moved)

This is just a note to let the participants at the MacGregor peer review know that the article is now up at FAC here. Cheers and I hope you're having a great weekend. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. This is your ballot paper for the Wikipedia leadership election, 2015. Please vote:

• Jimbo Wales (Tick here)
• User:Tauqonhcet (Tick here)

I will check your ballot paper shortly. Thanks --Tauqonhcet (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

(I want to keep a record of this piece of tomfoolery. I wonder why he selected me? Brianboulton (talk))

Mr Mason is now at FAC, the better for your doughty efforts. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Frideric Handel's lost Hamburg operas, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Halle and Edward J. Dent. 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) 10:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brian. I am truly impressed by the extent of the research you have put into this article and am glad to see it has been scheduled to appear on 8 December, the 150th anniversary of Sibelius's birth. I am still trying to bring the Jean Sibelius article up to GA status by the same date but now feel under less pressure to do so as you have included an excellent summary of the composer's life in your background section. While the mysterious Eighth Symphony is the kind of article which will attract attention -- and is therefore a good choice for his anniversary -- I think it is important to cover the composer's life and compositions in some detail. I would therefore be grateful for any help (or suggestions) on improving the main biography. I am currently trying to firm up the music section and have also invited our friend Sgvrfjs to help out with some of the missing citations. Within a few days, I think it will be a candidate for GA. As for your own article, it would be useful to have at least short articles on the biographers and other individuals you mention, especially those who come up several times: Guy Rickards, Andrew Barnett, Paul Voigt, Kari Kilpeläinen, Martti Paavola, David Patrick Stearns, Nors Josephson, Timo Virtanen and Vesa Sirén. I can try to help out by covering some of them in the next couple of weeks once I am happy with the main biography. One last question: is the Seventh Symphony "widely recognised as a landmark in the development of symphonic form"? If so, who apart from James Hepokoski has contributed to this assessment? Other assessments point in particular to the Fifth Symphony as especially innovative.--Ipigott (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm pleased that you're working on the Sibelius biography, and look forward to seeing it develop as a GA and, who knows, a featured article in due course. I am much pressed for time at the moment, and probably won't be able in the immediate future to do much more work on the Eighth Symphony article, or on the short biographies that you mention. On the landmark status of the Seventh, I can't specify exactly how often I've seen the work referred to as "revolutionary", or in words to that effect, but here are a few examples beside Hepokoski: The Finnish musicologist Veijo Murtomäki, quoted here, describes the seventh as "something new and revolutionary in the history of the symphony". The conductor Kenneth Woods ([1]) calls it "A watershed in musical history, a work with no real peers". And there's this Guardian article from last year. So I'd say there is adequate justification for the wording I've provided and no need to change it significantly, though I might tinker with it a little. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly. I'll look into your sources on the Seventh and perhaps revise my impressions. Great to have had someone who came in at the last minute to celebrate the Sibelian magic.--Ipigott (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I invite you to an ongoing RM. --George Ho (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

We just had an edit that changed {{TFAfooter/sandbox|Month=November|Year=2015}} to {{TFAfooter|Month=November|Year=2015}}. I see that you were using one form earlier in the month and the other form later in the month. Should I revert? - Dank (push to talk) 18:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC) User_talk:Edokter#Template sandbox in TFA seems to be relevant. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the edit is OK – it doesn't seem to affect the necessary links. I'm not actually sure how "sandbox" gets into the template, but it seems to make no difference. All is well I think. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2015 (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 90

←

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

Archive 96

Archive 97

→

Archive 100