|
User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 36
The Signpost: 3 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Empire of Brazil FAC is now open!Empire of Brazil is now a Featured Article candidate. Your opinion (either as support or oppose) is welcome. Here is the page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Empire of Brazil/archive1. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC) As an editor seems to think it needs a slight copyedit, would you mind going over it a bit if you have time? If not, no big deal.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I added this section, if you don't mind. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:NansenGreenlandmap1888.jpg Thank you for uploading File:NansenGreenlandmap1888.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Yes...Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pyramid Head/archive1 means I should be able to do a few source reviews at FAC. It was either that or PR, and I never manage to stick to PR very long. So consider this my contribution to PR, freeing you up to do a much better job there than I ever could. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Just a head's up - I'll be out of town tomorrow (Monday) and the day after (Tuesday). Will sorta have internet access at night, but you'll need to pick up any candidates during that time frame. It's a wiki related trip though! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Peer review of Section 116 of the Australian ConstitutionHi - I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to do this peer review. I really appreciate it. I'm going to work some more on the article to address all of your suggestions. I don't have any particular comments in response because I think all the suggestions would improve the article. Thanks again. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC) The Signpost: 10 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
For your considerationI'm sure you have several projects on your to do list, but I thought I might make a plug for some potential FA opera articles. Obviously feel free to ignore anything or everything I suggest if it's of no interest to you.
I hope I've sparked your interest. I look forward to reading your next opera article whatever it might be.4meter4 (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for peer reviewing this article. I jumped the gun a bit by submitting it for PR before I had some other improvements to make, but I'm going to step away now. Thank you. --CutOffTies (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Talkback Message added 03:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. I have responded to your last round of comments. Admrboltz (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Handel's collection of paintingsDear Brianboulton, I need some support. I made a list this morning of painters under George Frideric Handel. Handel owned quit a few paintings which were sold in 1760 after his death. I was very surprised to see so many names I had never heard of. It does not list his collection of paintings, because that would be impossible to finish. Now there is someone from Sidney who likes Handel but obviously he is not interested in paintings and reverted it. Can you give your opinion? Taksen (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC) John J. CrittendenSorry for my tardy responses to your concerns about sources on my FA nomination of John J. Crittenden. Just wanted to let you know that I have addressed them now. Thanks for your patience. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Warren County, IndianaSorry to bother you, but would you would have a chance to revisit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Warren County, Indiana/archive2? The reference issues you identified have been addressed. I realize you probably have other projects going on, but I have very much appreciated your help thus far and wondered if you would now feel that the article deserves support for FA; this is the first article I've attempted to take through this process, but it appears to be difficult for candidate articles to receive reviews (at the moment, at least), so I thought I'd ask. Thanks! Omnedon (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the PR I am reading over the comments right now. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 03:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Delius RevisitedI have finished the bones of the biography section – but by all means add or amend ad lib. You will see that I have a few "page xxx" references for Beecham's biography. This is because I have quoted lines quoted in reviews of the book, but have not seen the ipsissima verba with my own eyes. For reasons that I have mentioned by email I am not at home nor able to get to the British Library. If you are happy to wait till next week I may be able to do so, and deal with these, but I see no prospect of it this week. In contrast with my experiences in doing up the Elgar and Walton articles, I have found that the difficulty here has not been deciding what to put in but what to omit. Delius's life was such a kaleidoscope that there is a huge temptation to shovel in tons of interesting but not centrally relevant stuff. I hope I have kept more or less to the straight and narrow, but don't hesitate to shout if you think I've strayed, à la Bunyan's Pilgrim, into By-Path Meadow. Tim riley (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
(talk) 23:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Mao in WashingtonSan Francisco Opera announced they will do it next year. I am on their mailing list for some reason although the only time I have been to see them was in 1990, surely before I had email. Page is here.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Delius images
Brianboulton (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online AmbassadorsHi! I noticed your activity reviewing Featured Article Candidates, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes. If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply! You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones). I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC) CruttwellDon't know why I assumed you would be able to see the links, my apologies. I wondered if you might find them interesting: this was from a "review" of the election: "It is almost unnecessary to say that the result of the University poll was the main topic of conversation in Oxford during the week-end. Though the prospect of Mr. Cruttwell's defeat was never ruled out by Conservative headquarters in London, the general view in Oxford had been that the solid phalanx of countrv clergy, who have been the backbone of Conservative majorities in the past, would vote down Mr. Herbert's light-hearted attack. His views on some subjects, as expounded in his books and in a brilliant election address, can hardly be supposed to be altogether congenial to them. On the other hand Mr. Cruttwell is thought to have taken the efficacy of the machine too much for granted and to have assumed that, although a newcomer, he had nothing to do but to step into Sir Charles Oman's shoes. It must be remembered also that he was nominated in the face of a deter- mined and well-organized opposition, which undoubtedly took its revenge by rallying to Mr. Herbert." (Times, 18 Nov 1935, p. 14) Also: "Mr. Cruttwell forfeited his deposit under Section 27 of the Representation of the People Act, 1918, which provides that the number of first prefer- ences is to be taken in deciding whether a candi- date polls one-eighth of the total number of votes cast." (The Times, 18 Nov 1935, p. 8) I don't know if this helps or if you want to use it, it makes no difference to my support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations on another fine FA! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Delius imageThe critic David Nice's pages have the 1912 pic and a clear date and attribution. here Tim riley (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg) .jpg) Piggybacking here, the problems for foreign works is if they were published during 1923–1977 and they were not in their country's public domain before 1 Jan 1996 (in that event they were considered to have US copyright for 95 years since publication.
-- Jappalang (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC) I feel the quicksand gathering around my shoes. (I clearly don't understand the rules. I thought Jelka's pic was PD because she died in 1935.) I'll contact the Delius Trust about the Victorian photos but don't hold your breath. Meanwhile I've sent you by email a scan of a page from the TLS, 1935, which has at least one image I think may be regarded as pukka. See what you think. Tim riley (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I have yet to check the other images in the article, but will do so later.
I can help to look for a pre-1923 photograph of Delius later. Jappalang (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Brian, I have gone through the other four images in the article not listed here and they are fine. File:Edvard Grieg by Lindahl 1876.jpg is, however, mis-attributed to Lindahl (Elliot and Fry took the photograph, not him): I have corrected the details and put in a rename request. Copyright-wise, it is still okay to use (PD in both UK and US). Jappalang (talk) 06:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Rinaldo performancesThanks for taking this on. Here are some performance reviews you may find useful for the Met production which originated earlier in Ottawa, Canada and was also exported to the Lyric Opera of Chicago in 1984. One review mentions a 1975 production in Houston and another says the Houston Grand Opera staged it in 1978. Not sure which year(s) is correct. I have subsription access to NYT. If you need me to look at any NYT articles I will. Here they are: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] Hope this helps. I am looking for more production reviews. Cheers.4meter4 (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Here is an interesting article in The New York Times on Joseph Addison's criticisms of Rinaldo following its premiere.4meter4 (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
A few more sources for you:
Hope these help.4meter4 (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I've put the article up for FAC now. Any further comments appreciated as always! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Main page appearanceHello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on January 28, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 28, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 03:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)  The Temple at Thatch is an unpublished novel by the British author Evelyn Waugh, his first adult attempt at full-length fiction. He began writing it in 1924 at the end of his final year as an undergraduate at Hertford College, Oxford, and continued to work on it intermittently in the following 12 months. After his friend Harold Acton commented unfavourably on the novel in June 1925, Waugh burned the manuscript. In a fit of despondency from this and other personal disappointments, he then made a half-hearted suicide bid before returning to his senses. In the absence of a manuscript or printed text, the only information as to the novel's subject comes from Waugh's diary entries and later reminiscences. The story was evidently semi-autobiographical, based around Waugh's Oxford experiences. The protagonist was an undergraduate and the work's main themes were madness and black magic. Some of the novel's ideas were incorporated into Waugh's first commercially published work of fiction, the 1925 short story "The Balance", which includes several references to a country house called "Thatch" and, like the novel, is partly structured as a film script. Acton's severe judgement did not deter Waugh from his intention to be a writer, but it affected his belief that he could succeed as a novelist. For a time he turned his attention away from fiction, but with the gradual recovery of his self-confidence he was able to complete his first novel, Decline and Fall, which was published with great success in 1928. (more...)
Zurich Rinaldo article It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Voceditenore (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC) More eyes on L'Orfeo neededHi Brian. See the section Spurious "Performance history" additions on Talk:L'Orfeo. I have now twice reverted this spectacularly unhelpful Italian IP (79.39.119.34). Voceditenore (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Lindenwood University Peer ReviewWhen you get a chance, please review the Lindenwood Univ. Peer Review. I've completed everything on the to-do list. At first I thought it was a bunch of small fixes but the changes really make the article much more readable and GA-like. Thanks again for the help and critique. Bhockey10 (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Chandra Levy PRHello, I do want to pre-emptively apologize as I had gone through nearly all your suggestions for the Peer review of Chandra Levy before becoming pre-occupied during the holidays (and letting a bot close it). However, I also want to thank you as I thought your observations helped to greatly improve the article. I had only partially gone through the very last sections, Media coverage and Impact, as another editor had also responded. Please let me know of any additional work you think may need to be done for FA standard. I would be happy to resubmit this article for another round through WP:PR if you think it is appropriate. KimChee (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Sources reviewThanks Brian for your sources review here. I have responded to your concerns – would you be able to check back in? Many thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Note re above 3 messages: I will check all these out as soon as I can. Today has been very difficult for numerous reasons, but the weekend will be calmer. Rest assured you are not forgotten! Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
|
