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.
Hi Brian - if you have the opportunity and inclination,do please take a look at the current state of Richard Wagner, where Peter Cohen and I have made a start at addressing your comments. Shortening the lead is not so easy with this topic; I haven't touched it yet. Best,--Smerus (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Brian. Since you are an experienced FA reviewer, I think the FAC on Romney might benefit from some more non-USA eyes on it. It's a long article though, so... FYI, I'm not the nom, just interested in seeing the review include some experienced assessors. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I dipped my toes into the peer review, but withdrew when I realised that this article might take over my life. Judging by the FAC page, it appears that quite a few lives are becoming preoccupied. At a glance, the article is being criticised on the grounds of not being comprehensive enough, but also for being too long - a difficult situation to reconcile. I can't promise a detailed review, but as soon as I can I will read through the article again, with three broad questions in mind:
Are there areas of Romney's career which are insufficiently covered?
Conversely, is there overdetailing in other areas?
Do the suggestions in the FAC that the article is too much slanted in Romney's favour have any validity?
I won't be commenting on the prose, unless I find something particularly egregious. I can't promise I can do this exercise today, but I will try to give it some priority. Brianboulton (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Antonín Dvorak
Hello, Brian. If you don't mind, would you take a look at the current state of Antonín Dvořák? I am one of the four major contributors (along with Smerus, Vejvančický, and Antandrus), and I have been thinking about getting this article up to GA/FA status. As such, can you please give me thoughts or ideas on how I shall improve this article? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harold Larwood, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Freddie Brown and Lancashire League (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Lol (The cricket variety, not an indication of mirth)
I've had a quick look, and it looks really good. There's nothing major that leaps out as missing, just a few little things.
The lead doesn't really make the point that he was a damned good bowler who had a lot of success with or without Bodyline.
Maybe make a bit more of the fact that Carr nursed him in the early days. This comes across in ""The best way to deal with him", Carr said later, "was as if he was my own son"", but perhaps more needs to be said. Carr was a huge influence in terms of supporting him, looking after him, etc. And he encouraged him to drink like a fish, but maybe that one could be left out.
More on 1928-29? I think that Hamilton is a little light on this tour, to be honest, and perhaps more could be said. There's quite a lot in Jardine's biography by Christopher Douglas if I remember rightly.
The Mailey quote on Larwood to Archie Jackson: It was certainly during the 4th Test that Larwood bowled that leg theory spell; possibly Mailey got the wrong Test.
In the second Test in 1932-33, it may be worth adding that apart from the slow pitch, Larwood was below par as he had the wrong boots on and his feet were mangled. That's definitely in Douglas, if it isn't anywhere else.
Keeping with the Carr theme, when Larwood came back from Australia, Carr met him partway home and encouraged him to go public in the press. And if I remember rightly, he had his journalist's hat on at the time. Nice man. And not directly relevant, but he also backtracked on bodyline after he was on the receiving end in (?) 1934.
Possibly worth a mention that Julien Cahn was in on the "conspiracy": A long-time Larwood supporter, it was Cahn who tried to get him to sign an apology before he went rogue in the press before the 2nd Test in 1934. (And is it worth saying that Larwood was officially "unfit" before the first Test that year, rather than not selected or not available?)
And maybe a sentence on the 1934 Tests, and the elephant(s) in the room throughout that summer. For example here?
I think a little more could be made of the reverence in which he was held by contemporaries (generally, rather than specific people), who all rated him the fastest/best ever. There's a nice quote in Douglas somewhere which says roughly that Larwood and Jardine together were so good that they had to change the rules. Although I can think of one part of the world which would vehemently disagree with that assessment!
However, none of these are major points, and feel free to disagree with some/any/all of the above. I'm more than happy to chip in further at the peer review, when you get to that stage, as well, and I'm slightly worried that you may have raised the bar considerably on cricket articles! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for these comments, which I will consider carefully. I don't have the Douglas book but I can probably get it. Hamilton's book, though full of detail, is so whimsically organised as to be one of the most annoying biographies I've ever read. I'm a bit sated with cricket articles at the moment, but I'll give Gilligan another pair of eyes, if you like. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd be delighted to review the article. Unless you are wanting to delay it further, I should get to it before the weekend. Just out of curiosity, have you given up on PR? It does occasionally seem a little lifeless there these days. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I still monitor and update the PR backlog page, and I still do a few reviews, if I am asked or if the subject looks interesting. But the days are gone, I'm afraid, when Ruhrfisch, Finetooth and I, between us, would regularly polish off 60 reviews in a month, sometimes more. The former two are relatively inactive at the moment (more's the pity), and I've had to ration my WP time. It's a case of more people getting involved on a regular basis, if PR is to regain its previous strength. Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Magic Flute discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Brownlee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I moved him from pending requests to requests, please improve the blurb. I had nominated a lady before for the same day, but have no preference ;) - Singing the Fauré Requiem was a great experience! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks but no thanks. I have previously offered to help out in this capacity on a temporary basis, but have been ignored. I think I am persona non grata in the Raul bunker, possibly because I consort with the likes of Wehwalt and others among the disapproved. However that may be, I have no ambition for any title or office; I have the utmost trust in Ian and Graham as FAC delegates, and will support any appointment of similar quality as TFA delegate. Brianboulton (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll get to your remaining comments tomorrow as I've had a fairly hectic weekend, but thanks for the review. On D'Oliveira, if your book turns up in the next day or two, feel free to send some page numbers! I'll probably cut that part about Douglas-Home, though. You are correct about getting it right, and I should be able to get hold of a copy of the Oborne book myself in the next few days to double check, at which point I'll probably head for FAC. I think this is one of those articles which should be spot on, as there is surprisingly little about Gilligan out there: his ODNB entry is, frankly, poor, and all the other good stuff came out before his ... er ... affiliations became known. And looking at the D'Olly article, I might try to spruce that up if I get the Oborne book. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've located the Oborne book and it confirms what I have said. In fact, I raised this same point when I peer reviewed the Alec Douglas-Home article in May. Home shilly-shallied in his discussions with Vorster, not seeking any firm answer because he though that would be "injudicious". He "advised the MCC to drop its policy of seeking assurances about the tour", because the question [of D'Oliviera's selection] was "hypothetical". "In other words", says Oborne, "there was no need to sacrifice everything over some high-minded confrontation about an abstract principle". Not in the least honourable on Hume's part, but not the same as actually backing Voirster's stance. The Oborne refs are pp. 138–39 and 154.
Of Gilligan's role in the D'Oliviera affair Oborne says: "It would be wrong to make too much of Gilligan's embarrassing past. Given that presidents are appointed for only a year, it was a very strong president indeed who could impose his personality on the permanent MCC secretariat of [Billy] Griffith and [Gubby] Allen, and Gilligan was not a strong president" (Oborne, p. 194)
You can get publication details of the Oborne book from the Douglas-Home article. My view is that the information on Home's dealings with Vorster is marginal to the Gilligan article, but that the direct quote on Gilligan's role (or lack of it) might be worth including. Incidentally, as a by-product of my search for the Oborne book I unearthed a mouldering copy of Gilligan's Men by Monty Noble. My father's legacy goes deep. Brianboulton (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Much obliged. I've switched part of that section to a quote of Oborne and cut the ADH part, as I think you are right on that one. Thanks for the comments, and I'll close the PR tonight. (If the Noble book has any amazing revelations, such as Gilligan trying to recruit the Australian team, please let me know, but my hopes are not high!) Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Gilligan is about ready to go. I have limited internet access on Monday and Tuesday, but I suspect that I won't be rushed off my feet by reviewers. If I don't put him up tonight, I will do so tomorrow. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
And I've added a touch more on the D'Oliviera affair, having got hold of a copy of Oborne's book. I think it is worth mentioning that he sat on a letter which outlined the SA government's position regarding Dolly, so I've put in a sentence to that effect. I suspect the thoroughly detestable Allen had far more to do with the whole thing though, and I may have found my next project (D'Oliviera, although Allen is also on my list) if I can get hold of a few more books. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I doubt it, and am somewhat peeved about the whole thing still. I'm sorry Malleus is at 206, if they are to be queued for.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I may have spoken too soon - though last time they were to be distributed "next week" was many moons ago. I'm sure those at 101 and below will have no trouble securing articles from the lucky 100 should they need them (though I'm sad that the "need and merit" clause was dropped; sorting that out would have been fantastic). Yomanganitalk18:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I saw. Not a complete answer, nor did it comprehensively lay out what happened earlier in the year but I don't feel motivated to get into it over that. I've said my piece regarding the situation. BTW, in six days I start my semi-annual cruise so my online presence will be curtailed. I'll be reviewing as usual, though, as I will be checking in at least daily and can do the work offline. There is time to fill, never fear.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
It was a bit of an answer. I don't see your name on the signup, is that because you already have access? Enjoy your cruise; can I request a review for Harold Larwood (not at PR yet, but a talkpage review would be fine)? You, too, Yomangani, if you're still watching and have a moment or two to spare? I don't normally do cricketers, but there is a a bit more to Larwood than lists of bowling performances. Glad for any comments. Brianboulton (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I joined a local library that carries it with membership. TCO's idea, actually. May not be until the weekend on Larwood. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
(I've moved this, to keep it separate from the JSTOR thread)
Both Jinnah and Truman were promoted, which clears the decks, so to speak. I'll drop a coin in the slot to keep FAC busy while I am at sea (I will be checking in). Thanks for all your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Good news on Jinnah & Truman. I did very little with regard to the latter; it rather fell off my radar in the last couple of weeks when I have been somewhat distracted. I won't be sending Larwood to FAC until the end of the week, as I want to tinker a bit more. Enjoy your well-earned time at sea (and watch out for any return of Superstorm Sandy). Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah yes, we should all be watchful for that. My cruise does touch at Gibraltar. I understand our coverage of it has improved. Good luck in your dealings with the recumbent incumbent.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
And to save me looking around, could I trouble you, when you nominate Larwood, to let me know on my talk and leave a link? (preferably a link to the edit window) When internet is charged by the minute, you are always looking to save time.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll be happy to do that. I visited Gibraltar in 1985; the sea trip across from Tangier was amazing. The thing I most remember about the place itself is that the main street goes right across the airport runway, on the way to the Spanish border. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I was there in 1986, and flew across to Tangier. I remember little. That was my student tour of Europe. Regrettably, due to the time of year, I suspect our approach and departure will be under the cover of night.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.
JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swallingwikimedia.org) with...
the subject line "JSTOR"
your English Wikipedia username
your preferred email address for a JSTOR account
The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.
Hi. Afroyim v. Rusk (a 1967 Supreme Court case on citizenship law) is, I believe, very close to being ready for FAC. As a significant contributor to my last FAC a year ago (United States v. Wong Kim Ark), I'd be interested in whatever observations you might have. In order to avoid another knock-down, drag-out FAC session like last time, I'd very much like to clean up Afroyim v. Rusk as much as possible before I formally nominate it. Thanks, in advance, for any help. — Richwales18:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
TFA update
As the discussion on the FAC talkpage has moved on to another issue, I am summarising for my own benefit how things appear to stand:
Raul does not think TFA notifications are essential and considers it a matter for volunteer action.
Sandy suggests that notification is accomplished when the maindate parameter is added to article talk, and that it is not necessary to separately notify editors. That, in my view, would be fine as long as TFAs are scheduled sufficiently far in advance to allow the necessary polishing and preparation, though an additional personal prompt would be helpful...
...and, happily, the Ucucha bot is working again, so editors are indeed being individually notified.
Most editors in the discussion seem to think that a week's notification is the minimum period necessary for effective TFA preparation. TFA is presently scheduled to 27 November – 6 days ahead. In recent days the lead time has generally been more than a week.
Raul's suggestions concerning the need for an additional TFA delegate seems to have been lost, or dismissed out of hand. The point here is not whether an extra delegate is needed right now, but whether such an appointment would help avoid the stressful times of recent months, when there was often only a day's notice or less before a main page appearance. What is wrong with a spare pair of hands? (I stress for the nth time that I have no wish to be a delegate myself, but would always be prepared to help out in an emergency).
One general point: Constructive criticisms of procedures shouldn't be treated as attacks on individuals, and are often made by people who have the best interests of the project at heart. Occasionally tempers get frayed and the wrong language is used, but retaliation and long-term grudges are pointless. At the moment I am basking in the warm glow of impending JSTOR; many thanks to everyone involved in achieving this. Brianboulton (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep basking in warm glow! Scheduling is down to 3 days in advance, if you can call it such ;) - Will you nominate Cosima for 24 Dec, please? I would be happy to do it for you, but the "one nomination only rule" is rather strictly enforced now. I wonder why four different nominations on four topics by four users (all not me) are a problem, but get simpler questions not answered, - I try to be patient ;) - The bot is back to announcing, - the bad news is that it doesn't realise rescheduling, as for 24 November, - people are better, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Raul has stated he plans to name additional delegates for TFA. I trust the delegates will be people who will command wide support in the community, that is, people who are known for their fairness, neutrality, and for not being polarizing, and who are not leading partisans regarding the leadership question.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Scheduling is currently until 1 December; I agree it needs to be kept 7 days in advance if possible. The promised additional delegate(s) could help to ensure that. I will nominate Cosima shortly; I'm a bit concerned about the points tally which may disappear altogether if a music biography is scheduled in the meantime. Sod's law says it will be. Brianboulton (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The more important you present her soon. There was already a nom for 25 December, and there is another pending for the 24. - There's also the open question on TFAR (which I did not start) on the point system in general. I think prose arguments would work better than the math. The lady for which I argued is scheduled for 1 Dec, one of few woman, - a good pro for Cosima ;) Fauré was 4 November, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the encouragement to return to Wiki work. Though busier than ever (and with a restarted, burgeoning extra career in photography to boot), I am slowly getting back to some sort of regular contributing here. Aaron Copland's recent birthday sparked my work on the article linked in the title, which I might eventually want to get to FA status. What's there up to this point is a good start but I feel slightly limited as to what additional directions to possibly take it, so a second set of eyes and some possible suggestions would be most welcome. Since you're likely at least as busy as ever these days, I'll understand if you don't have the time to look at it anytime soon or at all. Either way, no worries. Hope you and yours are doing well and that everything's going swimmingly. Jonyungk (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I have fixed the italicization of the Connotations title, and will try to look at the article in some detail later, though I am pretty occupied at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Magic Flute discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Kraus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I'm not sure you're right. According to Daniels's memoir, the whole area where Cardus lived has been redeveloped with new housing. The name "Summer Place" has been retained, and nearby is a "Neville Cardus Walk. But thanks for your interest. Brianboulton (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration is an era which extended from the end of the 19th century to the early 1920s. During this 25-year period, the Antarctic continent became the focus of an international effort which resulted in intensive scientific and geographical exploration, sixteen major Antarctic expeditions being launched from eight different countries. The common factor in these expeditions was the limited nature of the resources available to them before advances in transport and communication technologies revolutionised the work of exploration. Each expedition became a feat of endurance that tested its personnel to physical and mental limits, and sometimes beyond. During the course of these expeditions, the geographical and magnetic poles were both reached. The achievement of being first to the geographical South Pole was a primary object in some expeditions and was the sole rationale for the venture undertaken by Roald Amundsen(pictured). The expeditions also generated large quantities of scientific data and specimens across a wide range of scientific disciplines, the examination and analysis of which would keep the world's scientific communities busy for decades.
Assuming whatever bug that's trying to lay me low doesn't succeed, I should get to a few more this afternoon. Gotta do some "real work" first. Ealdgyth - Talk17:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Misplaced comments?
Hi Brian. You left a few source comments at my current FAC here, but given the content of the comments (they mentioned ref numbers the article doesn't go up to, and mention a lack of sfn style cites which this uses, etc), I think you may have meant to include them elsewhere. I'd rectify it for you but I'm not sure where you had meant to add them. GRAPPLEX00:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I've added a comprehensive (I hope) list of books to the Cardus article, but by all means sequester it to a separate sub-article if you think it too long and intrusive in the main text. Tim riley (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Excellent list; the main text will soon be greatly expanded, so the longish list won't look disproportionate. I might say that my pace is somewhat slow on this project because (a) I am having to read/re-read a great deal of material, (b) I have concurrent concerns, e.g. Larwood, review duties and (c) the usual off-wiki issues taking up time. I had hoped at one time to have Cardus ready for peer review by 3 December; 12th to 15th December seems more realistic now. If we can work in harness, that will of course speed things up. Brianboulton (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your plans are for Cardus, but I think I have one or two small pieces on his impact as a cricket writer, mainly from forewords to his anthologies, if that is any help. If not, no problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. My health is fine, and I'm still active on Wikipedia. However, about a year ago I began to re-think what I was doing to improve the encyclopedia and why. I love research, writing, and photography, and Wikipedia is a good place to do these things for a large readership. However, five years into my tenure here I was spending way too much time doing painful things and too little time having fun. Since then, I've essentially stopped nominating articles for promotion or doing any reviewing. In my mind, the two always went together. Finetooth (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand this point of view; both of you have more than carried out any obligation you may have incurred towards the project and have helped it enormously. The same goes for Ruhrfisch. I still have a few more articles I want to push through, and so feel obliged to continue to help with reviews - though it just isn't possible to do the large numbers of a few years back. Let's see if raising the issue results in new volunteers coming forward. Brianboulton (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Brian, I am also fine and will try to comment on the FAC talk page. I have gotten busier in real life over the past few years, and eventually found myself doing almost nothing on Wikipedia but reviews on articles, many of which I frankly had little interest in (since the PR backlog has the articles no one else has had an interest in reviewing yet). I still hope to get back to writing articles and will try FAC with them if they get that far. Ruhrfisch><>°°03:26, 1 December 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.
