User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 110
Source reviewing at FAC@FAC coordinators: : I have posted a guidance essay, User:Brianboulton/Guidance on source reviewing at FAC, intended to assist potential sources reviewers (there's a link within the massive talkpage thread on WT:FAC but you'll have a job finding it). If you think that this essay could significantly help potential reviewers, you may want to consider giving a more prominent link somewhere on WT:FAC. My main purpose in opening that thread was, as I say in its second paragraph, to encourage other editors to share the burden of FAC source reviewing, which I have carried more or less alone for some time. Regrettably, the thread soon descended into a forum of "opinions" from editors, so I'm not holding my breath that much will come of that discussion although perhaps a few consciences might be pricked. For myself, I need (and will be taking) a complete break from source reviewing, for some considerable while. I hope that this will not impact too badly on the FAC process, but I fear that if I keep on, other editors will simply leave me to it as they have done in the past. Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Brainy Brian, I have completely rewritten DLB, and if I can find some independent, third-party sources for writing the "History" section, it could be close to FAC ready. Eric, Ceoil, Johnbod and Colin are combing through the prose now, and I've asked Nikki to look at the images. I know you are worn out on source reviews, but this article uses exclusively very recent secondary reviews (except for one, Neef 2006, and I am looking for a new source for that) and NIH pages, so I am hoping it will be an easy one, in case you are interested in having a look. The only part that doesn't use MEDRS sources is the Society and Culture stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
French goings-onBonjour de Paris! (wishful thinking: it's de Islington, truth to tell). M. André Messager is now at FAC, and if you are minded to look in and comment it will be esteemed a favour. Tim riley talk 15:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Ferrier discographyI warned an IP that the MANY edits break the syntax but they keep going. I feel like loosing patience soon. - Some of the info seems actually useful but tough to hunt for that among a heap of broken link etc. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
bengalBrian, I believe I have addressed all your issues. Revisit? Thanks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC) Books & Bytes - Issue 27Books & Bytes
Arabic, Chinese and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta! Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC) Ford Piquette Avenue Plant FACThanks for doing a source review of my successful FAC nomination for the Carolwood Pacific Railroad article. On that note, I created an FAC nomination for the Ford Piquette Avenue Plant article here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ford Piquette Avenue Plant/archive1. If willing, I would like you to also do a source review for this one. I read your message on the FAC talk page regarding reluctance for doing source reviews on FAC nominations that fail and get archived, but that's not something you have to worry about with me. Prior to this FAC nomination, all four pieces of featured content that I have nominated in the past got promoted on the first attempt. Any input that you would be willing to provide will of course be welcomed, but a source review is what is needed most. Thanks in advance. Jackdude101 talk cont 16:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 April 2018
Only somewhat adjacently connected, but in your work on him, did you come across / use any general histories of the left / spying / CPGB during the 20s and 30s at all? Stuff for general context and background (and, particularly likely to mention this chap, perhaps?) I hope you're keeping well, Brianboulton, and thanks for all your help elsewhere. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 19:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Guy Burgess – to peer reviewers and othersWehwalt; AustralianRupert; Ceoil; Serial Number 54129; Tim riley; DavidCane; Johnbod; Iridescent I'm notifying all the peer reviewers, above, (and anyone else interested in Burgess) that the article is now at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guy Burgess/archive1. Brianboulton (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Good morning Brianboulton,
TFA for June 26, 2018Hi, just letting you know I've scheduled C. R. M. F. Cruttwell as TFA for 26 June 2018. Hope you're doing well.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 11An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oscar Browning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Windsor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC) A thank you
Guy Burgess source reviewBrian - trying to edit on an iPad on a train, despite telling myself never to do that! I’ve made a complete cock and messed up your message. Long and short, I’d be delighted. Will reply properly when home. KJP1 (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC) KJP1 (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I wonderif you might have a quick look at this conversation from earlier and give an opinion...? If you wouldn't mind; shouldn't take long. Hope all's well—cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 May 2018
Percy Grainger scheduled for TFAThis is to let you know that the Percy Grainger article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 8, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 8, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
WikiJournal of HumanitiesFor the sake of openness, this is the email I've received concerning the WikiJournal of Humanities. I share Iridescent's view that such discussion should take place on talk pages rather than via private email. I have nothing to add to the extensive thread that has developed on Iridescent's talk page.
Would you be interested in putting it (or any other article) though external, academic peer review for publication in the WikiJournal of Humanities (wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJHum)? It's an academic journal in the same format as the medical journal www.WikiJMed.org. It couples the rigour of academic peer review with the extreme reach of the encyclopedia. It is therefore an excellent way to achieve public engagement, outreach and impact public understanding of science. Peer-reviewed articles are dual-published both as standard academic PDFs, as well as directly into Wikipedia. This improves the scientific accuracy of the encyclopedia, and rewards academics with citable, indexed publications. It also provides much greater reach than is normally achieved through traditional scholarly publishing. Anyway, let me know whether you'd be interested in putting an article through academic peer review (either solo, or with a team of coauthors). Alternatively, if you would prefer to write on a different topic, we may be able to accommodate you. All the best, Thomas" Brianboulton (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Books & Bytes – Issue 28Books & Bytes
Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta! Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Mud MarchHi Brian, As you may have seen, I have been working on the Mud March article recently, tweaking and altering some of what was there before, and adding and removing where I felt appropriate. I would like to take this article to PR (and possibly FAC) at some stage, and would like you to consider working as a co-nominator when we think the article is in the right shape. I have also opened the same offer to Sarah for her to consider, and I think if the three of us manage to focus our efforts on the article, it could be an excellent example of the standard that suffrage articles can reach. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Death on the IceHi Mr. Boulton, my name is Hayward Keats; I’ve taken an interest in Wikipedia since 2005. I have created some articles in Wikipedia, albeit very amateurish compared to those articles you and Mr. Riley create and edit. Those that I have created is my effort to allow Wikipedia readers to learn of my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I came across some of your work a number of years ago and have watched you develop these articles into tremendous encyclopaedic works. I note your interest in Artic explorers, classical musicians/artist and articles of little known tragedy of human endurance & suffering. It was the article on the Last voyage of the Karluk and the heroic efforts of Captain Robert Bartlett that I became interested in following your work. I was concerned a year or two ago that you and Mr. Riley would leave Wikipedia; I’m extremely glad you both stayed and continue to write for Wikipedia. I know it’s a bit odd to receive a request such as this, I would ask that you consider writing an article on a controversial tragedy from my little corner of the world, Newfoundland. It is a tragedy that every Newfoundlander knows quite well, the death of 78 sealers of the 1914 Newfoundland Sealing Disaster; Cassie Brown in her book entitled Death on the Ice covers the story. Thank you for your time and consideration on this request, Hayward. HJKeats (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
hiJust wanted to make sure you saw my revisions here and ensure that the reformatted reference is adequate? Thank you! Chetsford (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Brianboulton. I wasn't sure whether to eave you a message regarding this—or, indeed, whether I would be able to without sounding sarcastic :) but taking your opinions as ever to heart (see what I mean?!) John/Eleanore received a
The Signpost: 29 June 2018
|