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.
Thanks for drawing my attention to this, which I hadn't seen. At one time I thought to add Wild to my polar biographies; that is unlikely to happen now, though I'd happily assist anyone who decided to attempt it. Wild's is rather a sad story; he was on five Antarctic expeditions, but after returning from the Shackleton-Rowett Expedition in 1922 he was unable to settle, went to South Africa, sank into alcoholism and died in impoverished circumstances. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh dear. Maybe someone wrote an opera about all these sad endings for polar explorers... (if they didn't, they should have). Carcharoth (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
In case you missed it, this is from Apsley Cherry-Garrard's, Antarctic 1910-1913: "A young lady was so late that the party sat down to dinner without waiting longer. Soon she arrived covered with blushes and confusion. 'I'm so sorry,' she said, 'but that horse was the limit, he ...' 'Perhaps it was a jibber,' suggested her hostess to help her out. 'No, he was a ****. I heard the cabby tell him so several times.'" Tim riley (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Ooooh! Doesn't sound at all like Cherry-Garrard who, on the evidence of Sara Wheeler's biography, had rather a large broomstick rammed up his backside for most of his life. I don't actually remember seeing this in his book, but it's a while since I read it. Well, I suppose the horse objected, and the cabby got blocked from cabbing for incivility, then all his cabby friends protested, and there was an arbitration committee that collected evidence, and so on and on until everyone forgot about cabbing...wasn't it always thus? Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Do you have any time to go back to the Wong Kim ArkFAC? I hope I've adequately addressed the issues you raised, and there has also been a major overhaul of the article's "Background" section since your last comments. Just so no one will have any lingering doubts as to whether your concerns have been dealt with or not, I'd be grateful if you could let everyone know where you stand now. Thanks. — Richwales18:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I want to post my thoughts on the current state of FAC here, rather than as part of the increasingly toxic and impenetrable mayhem on the FAC talkpage, where rational discussion is impossible. I feel even more depressed now than I did when I last looked at that page, having just learned that Jappalang, the wisest and best-informed of our regular image reviewers, has packed his bags and gone, leaving a huge gap in FAC reviewing resources that will be very hard to fill.
That aside, my thoughts are quite simple and probably unoriginal. I am not looking to spread drama:-
The whole FA part of the WP project needs more visible and committed leadership from its director. This position requires a steady and regular involvement which is noticeably lacking from the current incumbent. It is time for a change. I don't know how this could be brought about if Raul is unwilling, but where there's a will...
Delegates, too, need to demonstrate an ongoing commitment. They are volunteers, so no one expects them to be on duty all the time. But there should be enough of them to ensure that the system continues to run smoothly when circumstances such as holidays, illness, RL pressures etc, temporarily remove one or more of them. I have long argued for the need for "temporary alternate" delegates, who could fill in when the appointed delegates are unavailable; this idea has never been seriously discussed. It is demoralising and off-putting to nominators and reviewers when the FAC page is paralysed because no delegates are available. Delegates should not remain "on the books" for sentimental reasons, when they are inactive for months or disappear entirely. A proactive director could sort such problems out.
I am against the idea of elections for delegate positions, but see nothing wrong with a procedure similar to RFA before their appointment.
The shortage of competent and willing reviewers is, as always, the main FAC issue. I stress the willingness; from my experiences over the years at FAC and PR, I believe that there are many competent reviewers who, for one reason and another, are loath to spend time at FAC. I would rather see some effort made to remotivate these, as well as in trying to recruit willing but initially less effective newcomers. Another suggestion I have made previously is that some of the more prolific FA contributers, e.g. myself, Wehwalt, Casliber—all of whom do a reasonable share of FAC reviewing—should voluntarrily reduce their content creation time for a while, and give more time to reviews and helping other reviewers.
Finally, in my various wanderings through the WP labyrinths I from time to time come across the footprints of stars of my early years with the project, not quite gone but now not doing much outside their talkpages. Would a reinvigorated FA system bring some of these back to a more regular involvement? Moni3, Yomangani, etc? I am sure that their reconnection would be most beneficial if it could be achieved.
The above are private musings and may be changed as I ponder more. It will be interesting to see if, in say three months, any of these things have come to pass. Brianboulton (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with much of the above, thank you Brian, for putting it into much better words than I could have. I have to agree with not wanting to step foot into that discussion over at WT:FAC - I have enough on my plate and don't need that stress. As a point - I've been trying to cut back my FACs a bit to allow some of the pressure to ease - and have made a commitment to review more (both at GAN, PR, and FAC) this year ... this doesn't mean I won't be putting up articles at those places, just that I need to pick up my reviewing a bit, especially outside my own subject areas. I'm going to try to review as an "outsider" more of Milhists FACs - I have enough historical background to grasp the content but without being a specifically military oriented writer... Ealdgyth - Talk17:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Brian; I hope you and yours will have a Happy and Properous 2012.
Brian, I deeply appreciate your many contributions to FAC, and I am in agreement with most of what you wrote above. I remember so clearly the day you first appeared at FAC, under the "tutelage" of the ever adorable Yomangani, and how quickly you became a force there, not only in writing, but in doing more than your share in reviewing and helping others. I also agree with your comments at WT:FAC (before you understandably withdrew from that maelstrom) that NikkiMaria would be an excellent delegate.[1] Her participation in that role may free me up for reviews. It would also rectify the concerns you indentify in your post above.
Raul is a committed director, who misses nothing. He wisely stays back until action is needed, and working under his direction has always been a pleasure. He doesn't overdirect, he does delegate, and stays above the day-to-day scuffles so he can maintain neutrality and avoid COI.
I'm sorry the FAC talk page has become so distressful, but I hope it will one day return to the place where you have added so much value. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Sandy. On my remarks concerning Raul, I was annoyed and upset at the time, having just heard of Jappalang's resignation. I believe that a light hand on the directorial tiller is fine when things are going well, but in more troubled times a little proactivity from above might be useful. If nothing else the system needs some defence against the anarchical tendency that all too often dominates the FAC page and bulldozes rational discussion. However, of the various issues I've listed, Raul's position is the least critical. For myself, I propose for the moment to continue doing what I've been doing for the past five years, writing, reviewing, and copyediting potential featured content, until the FAC page becomes completely unbearable (which, optimistically, it won't). Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
You probably totally hate me Brian, but I just saw your comments (Carch linked) and think you have a lot of good insights. Not just good opinions but perceptiveness.
For Sandy, I think Nikki would be a mistake, for now. I could kinda see things headed that way before (and not surprised by Lecen's comment either about unofficial delegate). I totally HEART Nikki's work ethic and attention to detail. Those really are very good things. That said, she is young and does not have as much outside Wiki writing experience or just wide knowledge. Think, Brian or Malleus or Wehwalt would be much stronger. It is not just about the mechanics of running through the pages or applying MOS rules but about having the gravitas and thoughtfulness about content and writing.TCO (Reviews needed) 20:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't "totally hate" anybody. I do find your kamikaze style of discourse rather provocative, not to mention exhausting, which deters me (and I suspect others) from joining in. On the matters in question, I'd say that Nikki's commitment and work ethic are as important as her youth and possible lack of experience, and she is already a delegate on FAR and an admin. But I'm not her campaign manager; I've no idea if she would even want to be a FAC delegate. My suggestion on the FAC was intended as a talking point. Of the other names you mention above, Malleus has said he would on no account do it. I don't know about Wehwalt, but I suspect he would not wish to compromise his considerable content creation activities. As for me, I have a few long-term health issues that could prove a nuisance, and anyway it is not a role I see myself in. I would be prepared to act as an occasional alternate, if my oft-repeated but never-taken-up suggestion (see above) were ever to be implemented. Brianboulton (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Me again I'm afraid
Hey Brian. I'm not sure if you have the Hepburn page watched or not, so I thought I should let you know here that I've left a comment/question there that I'm hoping you can address. I wasn't able to gage exactly what you thought of the article, so have pried for this information...Sorry to be a pest!
Also, if there's ever anything I can do to help out, just let me know...say if an actor/director/film page comes up on peer review, then I could offer some comments and help ease the load there. I'll try and keep an eye out for any occurances of this, but if I miss one then feel free to nudge me. --Lobo512 (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Brianboulton, I saw your note here. I've abandoned my copy-editing at the above article (see my talk page here), so go ahead as far as I'm concerned. 'Knowles' is used as standard throughout the series of articles on Beyonce's songs. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Cross of Gold speech, my usual nod to the Democratic opposition (like Jerry Voorhis before Nixon) will be my next FAC. As Hobart seems ripe for promotion, the peer review may close unexpectedly. Thank you for your thoughtful comments above, incidentally, I for the most part agree. And you owe me nothing, I on the other hand ...--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Now, William Jennings Bryan I do know something about. He was the prosecuting counsel in the Scopes Trial of 1925, and died five days after the court's verdict in his favour. Funny how, in those days, it was the Democrats who espoused the fundamentalist cause. (My chief source is a film called Inherit the Wind, in which Bryan was played by Fredric March, with the name "Matthew Harrison Brady"). Brianboulton (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Bryan was a mixed bag. Certainly led the pack in his early days, towards the end not so much. There was the whole thing at the 1924 Democratic convention where he urged delegates not to condemn the KKK, plus association with shady Florida real estate men. But he certainly blotted his copybook with the Scopes trial. Which was actually not that much like the famous play/movie, they took considerable liberties. But this was his great and shining moment. Odd contrast between my two "speech" articles, Cross of Gold and Checkers. Very different men, very different circumstances.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm hoping to get to your wonderful PR comments tonight... maybe. Did want to thank you profusely for the review... Ealdgyth - Talk16:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
just to keep you up to date, i have dealt with nearly all the main issues on the history section and have also cut down some of the content (from approx. 1800 down to 1400 words). i still need to convert the sum of 33s 4d into contemporary value (pound sterling), which i'm going to sort out. Kilnburn (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
That's encouraging. I'm sorry I haven't got back to the article these last few weeks but I have been somewhat overwhelmed. I will definitely read it again, when you think it's ready. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
i have now sorted that out. it would be a good idea for you (if you have the time) to re-read the section. i have though re-written some of the sentences due to paraphasing and plagiarism and taken some of the weight out of the sub-sections; 16-18th centuries and modern as advised. see what you think. Kilnburn (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
it's sorted it out. i took the most time sorting out the political crises of the 17th century; where i decided to remove the sentence in question (because of plagirism) and add additional information, but not too much. i have also merged the short paragraph on royal burgh status into this, but i am wondering if this was a good idea? anyway, could you have a look at the governance, geography and landmark sections; the length of the geography section i feel could be shortened and what about that small gap in the landmarks section? other areas such as demography, economy and culture i would say are fine. what do you think? Kilnburn (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, this is back at FAC, and Babel has answered questions on the FAC's talk page left over from the previous FAC. Thanks for looking at this last time. - Dank (push to talk) 01:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Halo
Hi. Hope you are doing well. Beyonce Knowles is not only a singer. She is also an actress, entrepreneur and so on. She uses her name in full as often as she uses Beyonce. Some of her single covers even list her full name. Added to this, we refer to a people by their second name (surname) after having listed their name in full for the first time in an article. By the way, there is no copy-edit going on. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I beg to differ. I am a user with viewpoints considered to be nonstandard or less supported, and a different methodology in approaching things. ;-) –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk)13:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Or who I was. And even this me is soon to be shelved, alas, probably immediately after the FAC director thingie is settled. And just when I was becoming attached to myself. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk)14:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Wong Kim Ark FAC, again
Hi. I've done considerable work on the Wong Kim Ark article in the past few days — including moving the Taishanese transcription of Wong's name to a footnote, in a way which I hope will satisfactorily address your most recent concern (raised three days ago). I would be grateful if you could go back to the FAC page again now, and let me and others know what you think of the article now, and whether all your concerns have been dealt with, or if you feel there are still unresolved issues standing in the way of this article's promotion. Thanks. — Richwales16:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi again. In an effort to reduce clutter in the FAC page, I'd like to propose taking all of our exchange, pulling it into one contiguous stretch, and collapsing it. Since (as best I can tell, please correct me if I've missed something) all the concerns you've raised appear to have been resolved, collapsing our discussion would make it easier for others to home in on the issues that do remain, without forcing them to pore through a scattered mass of resolved stuff. I'm willing to try my hand at doing this task when I get back to working on the article in earnest tonight (about 7-8 hours from now). Would this be OK with you? — Richwales19:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, are you still planning to do more study of the article before finally deciding whether to support it? If there are other things still to be done in your opinion, I'd like to hear about them. Additionally, if you have any thoughts on Savidan's still-pending concerns (which have now been clearly drawn out from the lengthy exchange), that would also be helpful. Thanks again. — Richwales05:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
By all means do as you say with my comments. My time is somewhat restricted, and rather overwhelmed by requests and review commitments, so it will be hard for me at the moment to study the rest of the article in great detail, or to give a worthwhile opinion on Savidan's concerns. I will need to rely on the opinions of other reviewers before I can commit to a declaration; in this regard, I see that someone has posted a new list of issues today. I am keeping an eye on the article and will watch developments. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks. When I do the collapsing, I'll be sure it's clear that your final decision is still pending. I'm hoping, BTW, to keep the discussion on this article going as long as necessary — though I got the impression from last time that TPTB may get anxious to "archive" (close as unsuccessful) if a consensus hasn't clearly materialized within about three weeks. The problem I see is that few people seem likely to get really involved with feedback except during the time when the article is actively up for FAC — and then it seems hard to get any real consensus (as opposed to one or two very vocal reviewers with strongly held opinions). I've mentioned this FAC at a couple of relevant project talk pages, as well as personally to people who participated in the first FAC; can you suggest any other steps I ought to be taking in order to maximize the amount and quality of input? Again, thanks. — Richwales17:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
You may get a bit more time than usual at FAC, because the aforementioned powers are very preoccupied with some wikipolitics issues at the moment. I think you've done all you reasonably can to publicise the article. FAC can be long and unrewarding, I know, but stick with it and it will get there in the end. Brianboulton (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm going to try milking this experience for as much as I can get out of it, because the only time I've really been able to get lots of useful input on this article has been during the two times it's been at FAC. I realize there's a pretty good chance now that I won't make it this time, but that's OK — at least I'm getting some good feedback, and the article is definitely better now than it was a month ago, and hopefully I'll be able to keep improving it after this current phrase of the ordeal is done. — Richwales03:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey; as you commented on the last FAC, I'm just letting you know that I have renominated Faryl Smith for featured article status. Your thoughts would be well received. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. It was instituted mostly to keep people from turning around and doing one PR right after another, but there used to be FACs that gave a lot of constructive criticism and yet that was ignored before the PR - the thought was this made them take time to fix the issues from the FAC before coming to the PR to fix what else was wrong with the article. That said, I have often ignored the "rule", especially when a candidate came from FAC in just the circumstances you describe (and I have told some conscientious editors who asked if it were OK to go to PR "early" after a failed FAC the same thing). Would you be OK with changing it to something like Articles must be free of major cleanup banners and 14 days must have passed since any previous peer review. PLease try to address issues raised in unsuccessful FACs before a PR.Ruhrfisch><>°°02:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but at the moment, with all the pseudo-drama and shenanigans affecting FAC I doubt the discussion would attract much attention. I suggest you make the slight alteration as per above, and that when the FAC issue is resolved we open a thread on the PR talkpage and invite regular PR reviewers to see if the policy needs further tweaking. Brianboulton (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - I have tweaked it to "Articles must be free of major cleanup banners and 14 days must have passed since any previous peer review. Please address issues raised in an unsuccessful FAC before opening a PR." and also changed Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy to follow the new text. I like your FAC comment above - I do not watch WT:FAC, but I have read much of the current kerfluffle - I wish I could just tell everyone to stop for a month, put all this enrgy into reviewing and writing articles, and then come back and start the conversation anew. Ruhrfisch><>°°16:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Someone has suggested a pause for reflection in that discussion, and I have added a request that, during this, the participants involve themselves in reviewing on the current FAC page, to which some of the more vociferous make few if any visits. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Jivesh. On the tenses question, my general rule is that if the source is permanent, e.g. in book or academic journal form, I will use the "literary present" for quotations. When the sources are newspaper or magazine articles or similar, I tend to use the past tense, as with your article. Other editors might do things differently; enough of them have looked at this article to decide if this is an issue. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
You could say "She intersperses her vocal line with vibratos..." etc, if you want something a bit more formal, but I don't honestly think you have to change. A little informality is OK if it leads to more clarity. Brianboulton (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Brian, I don't want to change it. The editor is imposing his opinion. My dictionary does not mention this as informal. Lol. But is it a problem if I do not change it? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't change it, then. De-escalate the situation; send a polite note to your reviewer, apologising for escalating his reasonable comment into a slanging match. Say you have given the matter more consideration but have decided to leave the text unchanged unless other reviewers raise the same point. Thank him for his review. Brianboulton (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I have tweaked around the "Aftermath" section, which makes rather more sense now. I was struck by one added piece of information, that Valckenier was charged with "selling the office of the governor-general." I don't recall anything about this in the article, unless it was sold to his temporary successor. What's the story? Otherwise I don't think I have further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I noticed, thanks a lot. The Blok source says "Behalve zijn optreden bij den Chinezenmoord was een der voornaamste beschuldigingen geweest ambtsverkoop.", which Gtranslate gives as "Besides his performance at the Chinese Massacre was one of the chief accusations had sales office." I'll see if Drmies has a better translation, as this may be related to the coffee / sugar fiasco of 1738 (already in the article). Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I would guess from the rough translation that it means he used his position as governor general to sell other offices, a common corrupt practice which no doubt still goes on. But with no more certainty than that provided by the rough translation you should remove the information from the article. Brianboulton (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll make it my first job to look at on Sunday (UK time). At the moment I am completely exhauuuuuuuusted. Checking my emails then going to bed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Just a little worried, as I'll be in Australia for a week starting on the 18th for the RecentChanges Camp and I'm not sure how much free time there will be for WikiWork. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Still up (bloody emails). I meant Saturday, not Sunday. That'll be about 12 hours from now. I doubt I'll find much more on the Batavia article that needs doing. I have kicked it around some, I know, but I think it's improved. Brianboulton (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Dang, that must be a ton of emails. Agreed, the article looks much better. Once this has finished, I'll probably bring a singer to FAC; the 5-year anniversary of his death is coming up. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Holloway FAC
Hi Brian, Jappalang's last review was his last but before he departed he left a few concerns. These concerns have now been addressed and the article is now problem free in terms of images. There are no outstanding issues that need to be addressed and as far as I'm concerned I am happy that the article is now ready for the consideration stage. Any idea's re the final stage of candicency? -- Cassianto (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The article has four valid supports, a "supportive comment" and one junk support that should be ignored. The sources review looks OK; there's a suggested tweak in the "spotchecks" review that, if it hasn't been done already, you might do. On images, I can't see that there are any of Jappalang's concerns outstanding, and there are no unresolved opposes. Now it is up to a FA delegate to decide if there is a consensus to promote. You may have to wait a little longer for this, since the delegates and other FA regulars are somewhat preoccupied at the moment, but unless some problem is brought up that has been overlooked these past few weeks, I think you'll get the promotion. It's a case of being patient. Brianboulton (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
That's understood. The suggested tweak has been done so I'll now wait for its consideration by a delegate. I just wasn't sure of its current status as Jappalang left prior to my latest image fixes. Many thanks. -- Cassianto (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The delegate will judge whether your actions meet Jappalang's criticisms, and if they don't, will tell you. It's a question of wait and see, but nothing is moving fast on the FAC page at present, for obvious reasons. Brianboulton (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
It will be a pleasure, though it is likely to be tomorrow rather than today. I am temporarily not nominating at the moment; peer review has a long backlog, and many FAC reviewers are occupied elsewhere. Monteverdi's lost operas is not quite finished, though probably ready for review now; if you feel like leaving comments on the talkpage, this would be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Alexis Bachelot peer review
Hi again, I think I have implemented the changes that you suggested at the peer review of Alexis Bachelot, you mentioned that you might want to read through it again after the changes were made. Also, I asked a couple small questions on the review page. Thanks again for the thorough review, I really appreciate it. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Martha Layne Collins
Just wondering if you would have time to finish your review of Martha Layne Collins at WP:FAC. No huge hurry, as it hasn't fallen into the dreaded "Older nominations" section yet, but neither has it attracted any more comments since yours about a week ago. Acdixon(talk·contribs)13:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's a pity that the politicos haven't taken this up. As you are no doubt aware, there are certain distractions keeping many of the FAC, and I think that's part of the problem. It may work in your favour, in that not much is likely to be promoted or archived in the near future; for one thing, hardly any media reviews are taking place at the moment. I will give the article some further review attention in a day or so. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, I'm aware something big is going down at FAC, but I've not bothered to catch up on the details. I mostly just write articles; other folks can sort that out. It is a shame that it is interfering with the 'pedia's everyday business though. Thanks in advance for your further comments, and if you know anyone else who might be interested in giving it a look, I'd appreciate your dropping them a note or letting me know who they are so I can. Acdixon(talk·contribs)18:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hate to bug you about this again, but Sandy just dropped a note on this FAC that she is leaning toward closing it with no consensus (again) if she doesn't see some !votes on it soon. That would pretty much ruin any chances of getting it to TFA for March 8. Wehwalt is almost finished with his review, and if you could get to the point in your review that you could register a !vote soon, it might help keep the nom open a little longer. If you know anyone else whose review I should solicit, I'm all ears. Acdixon(talk·contribs)16:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Ealdgyth doesn't often do modern histories, but she peer-reviewed Wehwalt's Cross of Gold speech recently, so she may look at Martha. Someone who probably owes me a review is Sarastro1; he's been very active at peer review recently, and you can say I recommended him. I'll also take another look myself; it seemed to me to be in fairly good shape, and it would be a pity to see it closed again with no supports or opposes. Brianboulton (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
If it's still open tonight, I'll see what I can do. I've had a really crappy couple of days and am just now thinking about a nap to rest my eyes and try and regain some calm. I need to finish up the GA review of Henry II of England I started a few days ago too... but I'll try. Ealdgyth - Talk17:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for the help you offered and the effort you were willing to put in with regards to Faryl Smith, now a featured article. I really appreciate your efforts, and would be happy to return the favour if I can ever be of help. J Milburn (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems to be my season for unmerited silverware. Many thanks; it was a pleasure reviewing Faryl Smith, an artist of whom I hope to hear much more (provided she doesn't turn into Charlotte Church). I will very much bear in mind your offer to review my work, which tends to be mainly on opera and classical music; it would be nice to have a new critical voice applied to my scribblings. Brianboulton (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I can hardly call myself a fan, since I'd never heard of her before your article and have yet to hear her sing a note. She does sound a good prospect, though. I note the new FAC nom, though it may take me a while to get to it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Quiet calm deliberation
It's from Act 2 of The Gondoliers. Let us grasp the situation/Solve the complicated plot/Quiet calm deliberation/Disentangles every knot. (In between gentle repetitions of this mantra each of the four lovers has an individual spasm of ego.)
Macmillan had it inscribed somewhere in 10 Downing Street, I think, possibly in the Cabinet Room.
The name of the song in which it appears is "In A Contemplative Fashion", where the word is pronounced con-tem-PLA-tive. In a contemplative fashion/And a tranquil frame of mind/Free from every kind of passion/Some solution let us find. Then it goes into the part that Tim quotes above. :-) The individuals' "spasms", as Tim has called them, are very passionate and at the end they each sing with increasing anger and agitation until they are all yelling at the top of their longs. They then look up and conclude: "Quiet calm deliberation/Disentangles every knot." -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Now you mention it, I think it was the Macmillan thing that drew the quote to my attention. He didn't seem like a G&S man, did he?. As to why I want it...that would be telling. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. Meanwhile I've given a first and fairly superficial proof-reading to Claude the Obscure. You need to decide whether you prefer Vergil or Virgil - both pukka, but one or the other per article. Tim riley (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi Brian. I just wanted to thank you for your in-depth review at the Doc Adams peer review. It's exactly the kind of review I was hoping for from PR. I probably won't get to make any edits to the article today, but I'm planning on addressing a bunch of the points tomorrow. Have to go back to watching the Giants game now. Thanks again! Giants2008 (Talk) 22:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I've done some additional research on the photo front and have found that Adams is in a photo published in this 1911 book. That's great news for me, and there are a couple other images of Knickerbockers in there that could be useful. Do you happen to know anyone who has experience scanning images from Google Books into the Commons? I don't have the equipment needed to do this, and would be grateful for any guidance you can provide. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Later: I can't open the pages of the google-linked book. I've checked at Project Gutenberg, but the book is not listed there. If the book's image of Adams is the same as the online one I mentioned in the peer review, I can scan it from the website and cite publication details per the book. If this is the image, does the book give any information as to date and photographer?
The image isn't the one from PR, but the same website has a version of the photo here. It has more of the photo than the book—which has the leftmost six players—but the portion with Adams appears in the book (might need a crop so only the published part is shown; I'm not sure). Historians have identified Adams as appearing fourth from the left (see the next-to-last paragraph here). The site gives the photo's date as September 3, 1859, and it was taken at a game between the New York Knickerbockers and Excelsior of Brooklyn. The photographer was Charles H. Williamson. Hope this helps. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
OK. I will do two crops: first, of all six Knickerbockers, then, a smaller crop to emphasise Adams more. I can't at this stage vouch for how clear the detail will be. Also, can you give the page number in the book? Brianboulton (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
What you did works just fine for me. The article will be much improved with an image of he and his team, distant as it may be. Again, I can't thank you enough for your work in getting the image scanned. I'll go add it to the article right now. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I think a warning would be fine. I would rather try dropping the limit to 2 PRs per editor than 1 (it would still be a 50% reduction). I am very busy in real life and likely will be for some time to come. I just have not had much time to do anything here. If we change the limit we should discuss it at the PR talk page first. Another problem I see is that there are more middle quality articles coming along - in a way this is a good thing, but it was easy to pound out a quick review of something that was B or C class. Now it seems we have a lot of recent GAs looking to FA - which is good, but more time consuming to review too. Ruhrfisch><>°°01:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I started a new thread at WT:PR, copying your and my comments there. Feel free to edit yourself, and apologies if you did not want me to copy your comments there. Ruhrfisch><>°°12:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Greetings Brian. I hope you are in good health. Everything is going fine at the FAC. And thanks for everything you have done. Yesterday, Sandy left a few comments I have addressed and she is satisfied with the corrections I made. Nevertheless, she is asking for another look at the article because she thinks the prose is still not satisfactory at places. I read the article again and did my level best (please see history of "Halo"). I request you to please take a final glance at the article and see if there is anything you think could be better. Please. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, my time here is very limited at present, and I don't think I can manage another prose check, which would mean looking at the whole article since Sandy hasn't specified where the errors might be. I can only suggest you ask her to indicate where errors have been introduced after recent copyediting, so that you can correct them. The last thing you need to do, however, is to ask multiple editors to look at the text; that will simply prolong instability. Brianboulton (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay Brian. Actually, there aren't serious issues. She just wanted someone to look at the article again. She has already listed it for spotchecks. :D It doesn't matter Brian. What you have done for me is more than enough and I will always be grateful to you as I badly wanted this article to be an FA. I put much love while working on it. I did it with both my mind and my heart. :) Take care my friend. May God bless you. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I would esteem it as a personal favor if you could find your way to reviewing Cross of Gold speech. I do understand, however, that your time is limited and has recently been devoted to many fine efforts.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
It is on my list. I missed the peer review but Ealdgyth did a fine job. I'll be there soon. By the way, if you could knock something off the peer review backlog that would be a great help. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I have one promised, and will look through for another. Yes, I agree, Ealdgyth's review was fine, but I look forward to yours as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you would be more believable if you supported your assertion with some arguments. It would also be extremely helpful if there was some guide to using copyright templates. Hyacinth (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Wow, that is an unnecessarily ungracious reply! My tone to you was entirely friendly and co-operative – why can't you reply in kind? As you created this file, via Sibelius 5, it is for you to release it into the public domain. I have given a couple of examples whereby this might be done. As to wanting a general guide to copyright templates, I don't know if there is one; maybe you should take this up with our WP masters. However, try clicking on "Upload file" in the toolbox on the left of this page, then scroll down to "it is an image from a website". Click on that, and then scroll down to an edit window marked "Licencing". That window lists all the various licences that are available for WP images, and you can take your choice. Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The opera was made by a guy who died in the 17th century, so it is in the public domain. The task of typing in the musical notes is probably below the threshold of originality, so it is probably not subject to copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Lengths of peer reviews tend to depend on time available. If you want to see the range of lengths that's typical, go to the Archives section at the bottom of the WP:PR section, click on a particular month, and browse. Some, you will see, are very long indeed. But with a heavy backlog and fewer reviewers regularly active on the page, they have been shorter of late. Anyway, your efforts to help are much appreciated; I will put Gloucester County College on my to-do list and try to get to it in a day or so. Brianboulton (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Your contributions at PR make me look like one lazy bastard. BTW, when I hover over your username an image of a perhaps 40ish female appears, wearing a white blouse that appears to have lost most of its buttons. Do you have her phone number? MalleusFatuorum00:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
No one ever called you lazy.... As to the woman, if I hover over my own username I get bugger-all, so I reckon you have special powers. It's probably that Dutch girl, making a spectral reappearance; I'll have a look. if I can find out how. (I hope it's not my mum) Brianboulton (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Sadly normal service appears to have been resumed, and now I only get this. Ah well, it was nice while it lasted. The hovering trick (I think) is courtesy of "User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js". MalleusFatuorum15:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I use all of these except the first, and the insincere dinner invitation (I never invite anyone to dinner, sincerely or otherwise). Another misunderstood response is "Up to a point, Lord Copper" (E. Waugh, Scoop). People assume it means "I'll go along with you part of the way". In fact it signifies total disagreement, but was the nearest anyone dared get to saying "no" to the dreaded Lord Copper. I might use that in my next review... Brianboulton (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The thing some find difficult to understand about English people is that we not infrequently say the exact opposite of what we really mean, as a form of irony I suppose. MalleusFatuorum15:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
For basically single-handedly rescuing my FAC of Martha Layne Collins from failing for lack of reviews for a second time, I award you The Original Barnstar and my sincerest thanks. I really appreciate it. Hope to have you as a reviewer on more of my FACs in the future. Acdixon(talk·contribs)16:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations on the promotion - and I never got to register my support! I have checked out your responses to my final issues and these are fine, so I would have upgraded my "leaning..." I hope to see the article on the main page soon - don't forget to nominate it for TFA. Brianboulton (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I've already listed it on the long-term list at the TFA request page. I can't formally nominate it for a couple more weeks. If you're interested, I just listed another Kentucky governor, James Garrard, at FAC. Jumping back to the late 18th/early 19th century for that one. I anticipate Charles Scott to follow that. Working on a rewrite of it now. Thanks again for your help. Acdixon(talk·contribs)17:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
It might have been wiser to request a peer review for Garrard before nominating it, as there is no shortish TFA date target. It's a while since the GA review, and there's not a great amount of recent editing activity to suggest that the article has been carefully prepared for FAC. If the FAC review turns into a long list of issues, plus copyediting, I doubt whether the delegates will be as cooperative as with Collins. Brianboulton (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Brian. Just a quick note to say that I've audaciously renominated Aggers at FAC under the possibly misguided opinion that we'd addressed the major portion of your prose concerns from the first FAC, just to see it dashed against the rocks of failure for being sans support. So, if you were interested and if you had the time/energy to deal with me/Dweller, we'd really appreciate it if you could pop by sometime to see how you feel we're shaping it up against the criteria. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC) (and Dweller in absentia)
Hey. Thanks for your return note, much appreciated. I've replaced that old Viv image with one that has seemingly appeared since our first nom. It's a lot crisper. Hopefully it'll do the trick. In any case, and as ever, thanks for your time and interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Given the success of my Rinaldo suggestion last year, I thought I might put in a plug for some opera articles which will have anniversaries in 2012. If any of these articles peak your interest, I will gladly help in putting together resources for you. Here are my 2012 suggestions:
Count me out from the Friml, and probably the Rossini as well. I have good sources on Il pastor fido so that's a definite possibility. I am not a fan of R. Strauss, but I am intrigued by the Ariadne story. I currently have Monteverdi's lost operas at peer review; this includes material on his lost L'Arianna, and I am also developing the main L'Arianna article. So you can mark me down as interested in Strauss's version. I have one or two projects in mind for when I've put the Monteverdi stuff to bed, but at present Handel and Ariadne look quite attractive as a means of passing the summer months away. Brianboulton (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Excellent. :-) I will begin compiling references for the Strauss and Handel works then. Obviously no rush since you won't begin working on them until the summer. I'll have a look at Monteverdi's lost operas and chime in at the peer review. I'll also put in a plug for reviewers for you at the opera project.4meter4 (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hutton
I'm probably going to put this at FAC in the next couple of weeks. The PR has now closed, but I would prefer to iron out the faults before FAC so if you get a chance to look at the remainder of the article, I would be very grateful. If you are too busy, no problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sorry I have rather let Len slip – and not just because I'm a Lancastrian. With regard to the FAC I will definitely leave comments on the talkpage before you submit, you say in a couple of weeks. If I haven't posted anything by this time next week, feel free to drop me a reminder here.
Thanks for the latest batch; I've done them all and left replies. I'd also appreciate any general comments on the overall thing: any parts lacking, any parts too detailed, etc. I've been working on this one so long I can't see the wood for the trees anymore. And I want to make sure I don't betray any Yorkshire biases as well! --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Brian, I'm back. Please see my comments at the bottom of Talk:Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and note that I will go through the article myself. I'm mad as hell that no one else would go over the prose and instead insist upon downgrading the article. It's arrogance AND laziness as far as I'm concerned. Jonyungk (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Glad to see you again, and I hope you will find time for a more regular involvement in reviewing and content creation of music-related articles, though I understand that life is busy for you at present. So far as Tchaikovsky is concerned, I don't share your view that there has been any attempt to "downgrade" the article. As the WP:FAR page clearly states, "The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them". However, I think that at this stage any move for an FAR is premature, and that in all likelihood any damage done to the article in the last 18 months can be repaired by some sympathetic editing. I think most people will be happy to see you resume stewardship of the article, and will respect your judgements about what needs to be done. If you want any help from me in this respect, don't hesitate to contact me. Brianboulton (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much. User:Smerus has already begun copyediting. I will follow up with what additional polishing I can do and see what can be done to streamline the structure (always a problem with this article). After that, I may eventually avail myself of your services but will keep you posted. BTW, changing the subject, how have you avoided Wiki burnout all this time? Could use a couple of pointers in this regard. And are you the same UK Brianboulton listed in Linkedin? Jonyungk (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The Linkedin "Brianboulton" is clearly an imposter, trying to cash in on my fame. I think burnout may be a question of temperament and circumstances as much as anything. I am fortunate in that my non-Wiki life is fairly tranquil, no boss, mortgage or fixed schedule. Writing and researching on things that I enjoy is both a pleasure and an education. I also spend a lot of time reviewing, which introduces plenty of variety and more education; basically I will review anything except professional wrestling. When I begin to feel weary, I take mini-breaks; a day or even half-day off, here and there, works wonders I find. Can't say if my prescription will work for anyone else, though. My daughter, who has just read this, says I sound like a smug git, and she may well be right. Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC).
I've also asked User:Smerus this but let me get your feedback. I'm debating whether to keep the article in its current two parts (a strictly chronological but thematically wandering Life section and Works) or to restructure it into four (a streamlined bio section, personal life (homosexuality, marriage, von Meck), peer relations (The Five, Belayev Circle) and music). As tempting as a restructuring is, my two concerns are the thematic practicality and meddlers who would start adding material already written which would come later in the article. Your thoughts? Jonyungk (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
As a rule , composer biographies on Wikipedia have been organised with the two-part structure (Life and Works), and a reliance on sub-articles to provide further details. Tchaikovsky already has many existing subarticles: Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and The Five; Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle; Death of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky; List of compositions by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky; Music of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky; and Symphonies by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, besides articles on individual works and on individuals such as von Meck. There may be a case for an operas subarticle, since neither the parent nor the "Music of..." article deal with these in much detail. My strategy would be to keep the parent article in summary form, and to expand or increase the subarticles, otherwise the parent itself will rapidly become bloated. I haven't examined the material added since the article became featured; maybe some is useful, some better incorporated in subarticles, some unnecessary, but let's not assume it's all down to meddlers. Tchaikovsky is a high-profile article that gets a high readership (around 3000 per day), and there will always be people wanting to work on it. For this reason it needs careful and continuous stewardship. Brianboulton (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice and encouragement. I'm slowly chipping away as time allows in a combination of rephrasing and subtle copy editing. The subarticles are substantial enough as they are; if anything, there has sometimes been too much material excerpted into the main article as a lead-in, impeding the main article's general flow and deflecting attention. Again, careful trimming should hopefully take care of that. Will keep you posted. Jonyungk (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Famous last words on reduction. I just spent the morning adding to "Relationship With The Five." At least I clarified why things were so heated about their respective musical styles. Jonyungk (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I, Jivesh, thank you wholeheartedly for your much appreciated help and copy-edits on "Halo", which is now an FA. Your encouraging words helped me even more (morally). May God bless both you and the day I came across a kind and helpful person like you on Wikipedia.
Hi. Just wanted to say thank you for the Gloucester County College review. I've responded to your comments, have started work on incorporating the fixes into the article, and will be archiving the review soon. I do intend to keep working on the peer review backlog whenever something comes up on which I have some degree of expertise, BTW. Allens (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Kirkcaldy article
the comments on geography have now been dealt with. is it necessary though to still mention information on the previous Kirkcaldy constituency and MP, considering it is such a long time ago now? i would have removed this, but i'm not sure. Kilnburn (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd remove that sentence. I take it that by "Geography", above, you mean "Governance", as I haven't posted comments on Geography. I am looking at the section now. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
that's fine, brianboulton. i'll start the work done on the geography section as soon as i can. before i go, i have two questions. i'm wondering, could some of the information on the development of the town from the 1950s to present be merged into the history section and should the picture of the Path House be removed to get rid of the gap in the landmarks sections? Kilnburn (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
This article has not been updated for five days, has lost its "construction" banner, and needs another review. I wonder if you could review it again. I swear, I will resolve issues that you may bring; if not, then I will have someone else do it. --George Ho (talk) 22:15, 30 January 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.
![[2]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tMUdmH7W4J8/Tqg5rw7J4eI/AAAAAAAACzE/PDquFrRMhjE/s1600/eyJNd-763188.png){kind=link}
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peter_pan_1911_pipes.jpg){kind=link}