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.
At the moment I am only carrying out sourcing and reference checks at FAC, to establish (a) that sources used appear to be reliable and (b) that reference formatting is standard and consistent. I am not in general looking at broader issues. However, with so far two supports, no opposes, refs checking out (and a standing ovation), I'd say the nom is in pretty good shape. Brianboulton (talk) 08:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
No problem. What you're doing is more than I do. I started to get involved in doing FAC reviews and had a really bad experience right off the bat, so I've given up. Anyway, I appreciate your feedback. From now on, I'll treat all books the same for consistency. – VisionHolder « talk »13:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I've never heard of Laurie Nash, though he seems an interesting character and well worth a top-class biog. Unfortunately, for the time being I have taken over Ealdgyth's role checking sources issues at FAC. I am also struggling with a major article of my own; as a result of these involvements, I have had to curtail my peer reviewing drastically. So I can't promise if or when I will get to the Nash article, but I'll keep an eye on it at PR, and step in if I can. Brianboulton (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to circle back with you to let you know that 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final has been promoted to FA. This was made possible in large part thanks to your efforts providing feedback in the Peer Review. Thank you for all your help. --SkotyWATC00:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Mahler symphonies' nicknames
Thank you so much for this (see my comment). I would just rather remove all nicknames – whereas Titan,Tragic and Song of the Night were once Mahler's original titles but later dropped, Resurrection and Symphony of a Thousand were never Mahler's own titles. Cheers --FordPrefect42 (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The names "Resurrection" and "Symphony of a Thousand", though non-Mahlerian, have such wide current usage that I think it would cause trouble if these were deleted from the template. As to the other three names: "Titan" was discarded by Mahler before the First Symphony achieved its final four-movement form; according to Jack Diether the subtitle "Song of the Night" for the Seventh did not originate with Mahler—nor is it that widely used (none of my several recordings mention it); the Sixth was subtitled "Tragic" by Mahler, though he later withdrew the name. I'd say it is an acceptable compromise to leave the two popular names on the template and remove the others as unhallowed by custom and lacking historical validity. I will post a copy of this note on the template talkpage, and see what develops. Brianboulton (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I have struck all the resolved matters. The main issue remaining is the inclusion of uncited material and comment in the footnotes. Also note clarification required re Salisbury and Melbourne. Brianboulton (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Mahler 8th
You seem to major in my musical bêtes noirs – Monteverdi, Mahler. What next, Liszt? I'm going through the text and will report back. Meanwhile some trivial stuff. I'm never sure how to render Arnold Schönberg/Schoenberg's name. His WP article uses the Americanised version; on the other hand, in Mahler's lifetime he used the umlaut. I have no solution – I just mention it. In the "Choral and vocal forces" section, you say, "the number ... present particular challenges" – possibly singular verb? In "Part II: Closing scenes from Goethe's Faust" you have "in a passage which de La Grange as "emotionally irresistable"" – verb ("describes" or some such) needed, and are you sure he spelled "irresistable" like that? It's –ible in both French and English, I think. More (and, I hope, more substantive, comments to follow – Tim riley (talk) 07:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - these errors due to typos/carelessness. On Schönberg/Schoenberg, modern sources are divided, most I must admit favouring the non-umlaut version. Since either may be deemed correct, I suppose I should demonstrate WP solidarity and go with the spelling in his article. I'm sorry you don't like Mahler, but at least this means you can review objectively. Brianboulton (talk) 08:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Very little to add, having done a careful read-through. It's well proportioned, an easy read, thoroughly referenced and should sail through FAC. My meagre gleanings are as follows:
Later: so sorry - hadn't realised you had already got a peer review page up and running. I have copied my comments, above, to that page, where they belong. Humble apologies for complicating things. Tim riley (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Your quote from Samuel Langford reads as though he was anti-Mahler, but his Manchester Guardian reports were well disposed, though not adulatory: see here and hereTim riley (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
With 1975 Australian constitutional crisis finally done and at PR, I will look at Mahler's 8th tonight. I think the 1975 article will pass muster, but I imagine the Australian editors will have thoughts about what they would like to see in the article, and I'll do my best to accomodate them. With Whitlam at TFA in 2004, this will be a good article to hold back and await Whitlam going off to confront Kerr in the hereafter, and run it on the day of his funeral.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Veni creator spiritus
Reading the interesting remarks on Mahler, I looked for the caps in that line and found confusing information. de-WP supplies this - the Latin way, cap only at the beginning, en-WP has all caps, but in the text Veni, creator Spiritus with a comma also. It's talking not (directly) of God but of the creative Spirit. I guess for the Mahler the way presented in the score should be taken. Greetings for Pentecost,- it's the perfect time to deal with that topic - --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you are right - Veni creator spiritus. The fully capitalised version is popular with some English writers, and a few have inferred a comma. But I think the best case is made by following Mahler. Brianboulton (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Would you please come back once to the article to see whether your comments have been properly addressed and then place your final verdict? I am asking this because it is getting difficult to sort through comments in the FAC, as there are so many editors who have placed their comments. I am actually asking some of them to place their resolved issues in a header box like two editors have done, but oh well, lets see. I addressed all your concerns regarding the formatting and the extra publisher parameters. --Legolas(talk2me)03:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
At present I am limiting my FAC comments to sources and referencing questions and will not, in general, be offering supports or opposes. However, I'll keep an eye on this one as it goes through the system. Brianboulton (talk) 10:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
In your edit, the code that you removed included "</source>", which should not have been included. Removing that extra bit of code will make the REVSUM script work. Also, the reason that Page Size returned after a few minutes is because you needed to bypass your cache; if you don't do it manually, then your browser will do it for you after a few minutes automatically. Gary King (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
SOrry for the delay - it reads very well and I had only a handful of suggestions, which are now at the PR. Please ask if there are questions, Ruhrfisch><>°°13:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I will be away from home the next four weeks, though still checking in fairly frequently on Wikipedia. I will probably nom the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis article about halfway through, so in case there are concerns, I won't lose the FAC (I am taking one ref with me). After that, I will be happy to start work on Nixon in China. Interestingly, Whitlam wrote an article for the Australian premiere of the opera.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, have a good trip. I will review the constitutional crisis article at PR in the next few days. I'll probably send Mahler's 8th to FAC at the end of this week, though I'm still hoping for more PR feedback. Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Southern Europe, mostly driving. I will be on whenever hotel internet rates are not outrageous.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, do you have time for a quick reference check on this article? I haven't the time, but a cursory look gives the sense that it needs a full check. If not, let me know and I'll do it. (Watching your page). Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
On the FAC of Loggerhead sea turtle you made the comment, "where the source is a print journal or newspaper the name should be italicised, otherwise not". I am unsure if online journals are to be italicised or not. Perhaps you could clarify. Regards, SunCreator(talk)01:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Italics apply for print sources, so on-line journals shouldn't be italicised. It can get a bit confusing when the online source uses an article from a print source. In those circumstances I generally cite to the original source, while retaining the link for convenience's sake. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Kokia discography
Thanks so much for looking over Kokia discography! There's a couple of things from the review that I'd like clarity on/your opinion as to if I've fixed them properly:
The sentence "Kokia has found moderate success for her releases." I don't consider it a judgement since it's a lead-on sentence for the data/judgements from Oricon and the RIAJ. Is there another way I could fix this?
Personally I would omit the sentence and let the figures speak for themselves. If you do so, you should also tweak the following sentence, from: "Of her albums, she has had three albums sell over 10,000 copies" to "Three of Kokia's albums have sold over 10,000 copies." Brianboulton (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Is Songwriting appearances --> Songwriting credits good enough?
Is it Nixon in China you want to do in particular or is that you think it would be more interesting for me given the Nixon articles I've done? Happy to work on it, but don't want you to be working on something you wouldn't normally do to attract me.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't like working in predicatable grooves, which is one reason why I have temporarily given up writing on polar exploration (though I've plenty more shots in that locker). I don't want to get bored with writing opera articles, and I thought it would be interesting to work on something outside the mainstream. I'm also interested in politics, so Nixon in China seemed like a good choice for a major expansion. Given your knowledge of Nixon and the American political system, it seemed like something we could combine forces on. Don't feel under any pressure, however - this needn't be your next project, or mine. I have other projects, and I'm sure you have, too. I suggest we give more thought to a possible plan of action and timetable when you return from your peregrinations, which I trust and going smoothly. Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
No, sounds good to me. I remember seeing several articles on the opera in the NY Times and I have access to the archives. I'm in Greece, actually, Ancient Olympia on sort of a prelude to the driving trip since it is not yet possible to leave Greece with a rental car.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, if you have time to deal with the crisis article this coming week, that will be good and I will nom next weekend. Good to have a Whitlam article in the tank to run if he heads for the Great Parliament in the Sky.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've replied to your comments, but the Peebles book does not seem to have an ISBN. Have you any suggestions? I'd appreciate it if you had time to make any other comments on the article. Thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I've added a few more sources to the article, including some you mentioned. I would appreciate if you could have a look to see if you think it is improved. Thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the ODNB stuff; great resource I never even realised existed! I've made the other fixes as well. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Elgar
I have put Edward Elgar forward for peer review, and, as you can well imagine, I should particularly value your input. I have less elbow-room than usual as there is another major shareholder in the article, whose toes I am anxious not to tread on. Your counsel will be greatly valued. – Tim riley (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Will do, and will try and start soon. I've been away a couple of days and have some chores to catch up on, but I'll look forward to getting into Elgar by Tuesday at the latest. Thanks for the kind blurb about GM, by the way. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I am awaiting an official peer review, but was told by a FAC delegate to get as many people looking at the page as possible. The page just received GA status today. At your earliest convenience, could you take a look at the Stephens City, Virginia page and review it (placing it on the page's talk page or mine is fine) independent of the official peer review. I would open to any and all requests during the review. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Much as I would like to help here, my current workload (and off-wiki commitments) means that it's unlikely I can get to this quickly. I will bear it in mind, but no promises, I'm afraid. Brianboulton (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Okie Dokie, no worries. I messaged a few people and you were one that was recommended. So there are many reviews that can be done between now and then. So if you get to it, great...if you don't, no worries. :) Thanks for taking the time to write back though. :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Brian, Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/River Parrett/archive2. I've dealt with some of them & responded on that page, however I've having some problems with others & wondered if I could ask for further help/explanation. I didn't add (& am not expert with) the harvnb ref format, but this seems to require the Blair book to have a seperate entry in the Bibliography even though it is only the 2 specific chapters Hollinrake and Rippon that are cited in the text & I can't work out how to resolve this one. I also can't see how using this ref template to change the order in which the date appears in the "Bridgwater and Taunton Canal" ref. Your comment about print sources being italicised seems to be standard with the citation template used - I prefer cite web, cite book etc - however these were all changed by another editor some months ago. I have asked the editor who changed the referencing format to have a look at these queries for me as I'm getting myself confused trying to sort them.— Rodtalk12:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll be home on the 22nd. Why don't we start looking at Nixon in China then? Or, I see your order of work lists a couple before then. I may start on Nixon himself, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
My order of work is eminently flexible, and contains some articles that, I am sure, will never be written - or at least, not by me. Sudden fancies tend to get preference above long-standing good intentions (I'm sure it's the same with you). I want to do "The Temple at Thatch" next, but others can be deferred. Because I am doing the Ealdgyth sources job at FAC, I have less time for content building at the moment, so progress tends to be slow, and I don't expect to be clear of "Thatch" until early July, though I will have started the groundwork on Nixon in China before then. I have plenty to get on with, so if you want to do Nixon first, that's fine by me. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, judging by the number of books in my library for projects unbegun ... Nixon may not get done all at once, it is a massive project. We'll touch base then, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2010 (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.
