Don't let me distract you from Shakespeare, but I thought you might be interested in seeing where King James has got to now (ie. how much the article has changed). The styles and honours were added very recently, and I wonder what you think of that Gunpowder plot paragraph? Anyway, what I really wanted to share with you is his poem on the Great Comet of 1618. What do you think? Carcharoth14:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw the comment. He is a 15-year-old Korean student. You might want to wait for more commnets before you change the reading level too much. Nobody else seems to have a problem with it and it's about as simple as it can get without becoming condescending--about the level of a daily newspaper. Tom Reedy01:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
qp10qp, thanks for writing. Mr. Rabbit, I don't want to disappoint you, but the "thee" in the sonnet means the article itself, not qp10qp, who I included because his(/her) name rhymed in a kind of silly way at the end. I was hoping it was funny, but with qp10qp writing that it was "lovely", I sure hope I haven't sent the wrong message. :) –Outriggr§03:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just finished reviewing the full WS article and I must say I'm impressed with the work you've put in there. Finally venturing off the safe pond of purely personal biographical detail and onto the murky waters of literary critcism, I found the text of those sections were now actually comprehensible to a mere mortal. Outstanding work!--Xover21:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James on comets
I had a look at the "funambulous Frenchman" footnote, but failed to penetrate the meaning of the quote. Since you can't see the poem (which is strange, as it should be accessible), I thought I'd type it out here before I go and read about Shakespeare...
Yee men of Brittayne wherefore gaze ye so,
Vpon an angry starre? When as yee knowe
The Sun must turne to darke, the Moone to bloodde,
And then t'will bee to late to turne to good.
O bee so happy then whilst time doth last,
As to remember Doomesday is not past:
And misinterpret not with vayne conceyte
The character you see of Heauen's heighte:
Which though it bringe the Worlde some newes from fate,
The letter is such as none can it translate:
And for to guesse at God Almighties minde
Were such a thinge might cosen all mankinde:
Therefore I wish the curious man to Keepe
His rash imaginations until hee sleepe:
Then let him dreame of famine, plague, and warre;
And think the match with Spayne hath rays'de this starre:
And let him thinke that I theyr Prince, and Mynion
Will shortly change, or which is worse, religion:
And that hee may haue nothing else to feare,
Let him walke Paules and meete the diuell there:
Or if hee bee a Puritane and scapes,
Jesuites salute him in theyr proper shapes:
These Jealousies I would not haue bee treason
For him whose fancy ouer-rules his reason.
But to bee sure hee did no hurte, t'were fitt,
Hee should bee bold to pray for no more witt,
But onely to conceale his dreame: for there
Are they that would believe all hee dares feare.
-Jacobus Rex
So, can you explain any of the references he makes in the poem? I get the reference to the Spanish Match, but the "walke Paules and meete the diuell there" is a bit opaque for me. Is that a reference to Paul on the road to Damascus, and meeting the devil and changing (or confirming) one's religion? And I'm not 100% certain, but is the bit at the end saying, "I don't mind what religion you are, as long as you conceal it"?? A learned king calming his frightened and superstitious populace while one of the most spectacular comets in history flames overhead? Carcharoth00:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughts on the poem. I had though that "walke Paules" might simply be a reference to converting to Catholicism, especially as the next two lines refer to Puritans and Jesuits. I like you bit about the comet being like the light Paul saw, but that doesn't seem to fit with the words of the rest of the poem. The word I really stumbled over was "cosen". Also, I see now that the bit from "Then let him dreame..." to "...proper shapes", is all examples of what James thinks people might dream of in their worst nightmares, including incorrect rumours: famine, plague, war, the comet is a bad omen about the Spanish Match, that he (James) will "shortly change" (whatever that means), or (worse) will convert to another religion. And that deep well of sleep, what dreams may come (ahem), and James is saying that in those dreams his subjects may dream of becoming Catholic, Puritan or Jesuits. He then goes on to say, "it's OK to dream these things, as long as you don't actually do them". Which is pretty much what you said. Anyway, let's see what wiktionary and Wikipedia make of cosen/cosen... Carcharoth16:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh. I didn't find out what cosen means, but I did find The Comet of 1618 and the British Royal Family Doelman Notes and Queries.2007; 54: 30-35. I can't access that. Can you? Anything interesting there? I may write an article on this 1618 comet, as the King James thing would be a nice hook for WP:DYK, and there are several tantalising references scattered throughout Wikipedia. How much of the poem do you think I can quote? Is it possible to put the poem up on Wikisource and link to it from my (planned) comet article and the King James article? Carcharoth16:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sherlock (or Google) strikes again! I found this (not difficult, near the top of a Google for "comet" and "1618"). It explains the "walke Pauls" as "to walk Paul's was to haunt the nave and aisles of St. Paul's Cathedral (Paul's Walk) in search of news. St. Paul's was the centre of political newsmongering in early Stuart London." - does that sound convincing? Carcharoth20:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just passing through, as usual, but I am in awe of your work on the Shakespeare article. I've just made a few small edits which I hope are OK, and the one thing that I wanted to raise is He signed legal documents as "William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon", which I feel needs a ref.
I thought about trying to integrate the Speculation section into the Life, where I (and, I think, you) thought it ought to be, but then I blenched [blench, to turn aside, to turn aside from what is right, to flinch - C J Sisson's glossary in my Complete Works]. If no-one's done it by my bedtime, though, I might have a go.
Thanks for the cautionary note. I haven't had much previous experience of FAC, but sort of assumed that one had to do what the reviewer suggests. I could indeed do a bit of sandboxing, but it won't be till next Thursday at the earliest (I'll be off soon to see The Turn of the Screw at Glyndebourne on Monday, and have to pack, etc.)
On the "of Stratford" - it does confirm that he was firmly based there rather than in London, but this is probably a detail that's best incorporated in the appropriate subsidiary article.
On opera, I greatly enjoyed seeing Mackerras - in his 80s - conducting KK at the ROH a month or two ago, though the set was rather too inflexible. And the opera is really gloomy - I'm mostly for upbeat endings, as in Jenufa and most of the rest of Janacek. I saw and liked La Fanciulla del West with Domingo (again at the ROH) a couple of times in the 70s (and have the LPs), though it isn't my favourite Puccini.
However, early Tudor polyphony really isn't my thing at all. Tallis's Spem in Alium is about the earliest piece of music that I really like, but after that there's nothing until Monteverdi. Nevertheless, I could knock something up on Ludford if you point me in the right direction, though User:Lethesl seems to be about to pre-empt this - see his/her Worklist. --GuillaumeTell23:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spem in Alium? It is one of the most majestic choral works I have heard. I like it even more than Allegri's Miserere. I was listening to the radio one night when enchanting voices lifted me to the height of beauty. (Spem in Alium caught my eye when I was looking through the talk page). RedRabbit04:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request
I read the article in three sittings during the first nom. I read it in one sitting during this week, which is a credit to how far it has come since. Anyway, thats not why I'm here; can I ask that you perform one of your patented forensic dissections on Symphony No. 3 (Górecki). I would really appreciate it, and you need not be gentle, all suggestions or criticisms welcome. Ceoil18:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, I tend to become over committed myself. You've heard this before, and there were other editors invloved, but the current state of the WS article is a huge achievement. Well done. Ceoil18:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way I'm spending my time these days between Poland, Holland, and Ireland, and I followed that FAC at the time, saw the difficulties, and understood that you could not turn to Yeats. Ceoil18:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for such a detailed and thoughtful review, the article has improved greatly from both you suggestions and your copy edit. I should be able to take care of the remainder of the issues you highlighted tonight and tomorrow. It goes without saying that you need help with anything, just ask. Ceoil12:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I can't think why I wouldn't"; but I did ask you to be ruthless, and that has paid off with dividends and strawberrys. Ceoil23:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will
The Barnstar of High Culture
I commend your hard work on William Shakespeare. Choosing to edit such a high-profile, controversial and research-intensive article is a mark of patience, perseverance and dedication to Wikipedia that is rarely seen. Wikipedia clearly needs more editors such as yourself. RedRabbit17:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you, an Englishman, ever heard the idiom "no worries"? I am seeing it posted more frequently on the internet from English and Americans, and I know it is of Austrlian origin. Perhaps this all comes down to Neighbours, a show we export but don't actually watch. RedRabbit15:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The prize was a ticket into an intensive comedy course run by Steve Kaplan. My entry was a mock-fad-diet piece advocating depression as means of weight-loss. The competition was run by my local theatre group. The competition, in fact, hasn't even closed yet, but I got a courtesy message this afternoon. RedRabbit12:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am pleased to see that there is someone on FAC besides Yannismarou actually evaluating content; I was beginning to conclude that it had collapsed into the hands of the people inventing rules for the MOS.
Could you have a look at the above article, now in FAC? I would like to have some substantive comments. (I find the paragraphs bunchy myself; but I don't think anything can be done about that until FA is over. If you agree, please say so on the article talk page.) SeptentrionalisPMAnderson20:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're working on the FAC for Ine; maybe we had some edit conflicts? I'll leave it in peace for a bit and go make lunch to give you a chance to work uninterrupted. I might not be around much this afternoon (US CDT) -- have to go out and buy new school clothes for my daughter. Mike Christie(talk)18:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message, some time back. Do you know about Charles Thomas and his interpretation of an inscribed stone found at Tiltagel, please. If so, please add to the new article on Thomas. Best wishes Vernon White - TALK PAGE21:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several thanks
Thank you very much, both for the valued support, and for the compliments that accompanied it. Both are much appreciated. It's a great pleasure to get you to review one of my articles; I know it'll be work, and I know it'll be worth it. Thank you.
I have replied to your note on geography at my talk page; I wanted to post a note here to make sure you saw my thanks. I should add that I am indeed working on Egbert of Wessex. I don't by any means have it in shape yet, but when I do, would you be interested in giving me feedback prior to FAC? Oh, and on Wimborne, haven't found anything yet -- I'll drop you a note if I do. Mike Christie(talk)02:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another quick note -- I just added a little more detail to the Christianity section. I found a ref for Ine opposing the division of Winchester; apparently Canterbury threatened him with excommunication for his opposition, but he wouldn't agree till Haedde died. I also added a note that the first West Saxon nunneries were founded in his reign, and mentioned his kinswoman, Bugga in that connection. Would you mind taking a look? I suspect I've left the prose a little choppy, and would be glad of another pair of eyes on it. Mike Christie(talk)
I was wondering if you could help me copyedit this article of mine. I know you've seen it before. I wrote most of it months ago when I was less familiar with wikipedia writing style, so it is kind of a mess. I really don't know where to start. I'm trying to get it to GA, for now, so it doesn't have to be perfect, just "good-enough". Anyway, I would appreciate your help, or, if you can direct me to another good copyeditor, that would be great. Thanks, Wrad04:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Egbert's bones
Hi -- I'm working on Egbert of Wessex, and haven't had any luck looking for a ref for the information on Egbert's bones in this paragraph. The editor who added it said they thought they got it from Kings, Queens, Bones & Bastards by David Hilliam. Sutton Publisihing, 1998; I don't have it and there's no preview available on Google Books. I can't find anything else in Google Books that gives the story. Do you happen to have anything that mentions this? It's a nice story, and I would hate to pull out the quote; I'd probably order the book via a library loan first. But if you have something that can source this that would be great.
Thanks for the detailed reply! It does sound like some of the info needs to be cut; I've been busy working on another FAC (non Anglo-Saxon related), so I've not been back to Egbert today, but will try to do so in the next couple of days. Looks like Ine will promote next pass; it would be nice to have Egbert ready to go into FAC, but I don't think I can get it there that quickly.
I'll see if I can cobble together a reduced version of the bones sentence and drop you a note when I've done so to see if you think I have it right. Thanks again for the help. Mike Christie(talk)03:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I decided just to cut it; I couldn't see an unambiguous cite even for the existence of the chest in the material you quoted, though it does seem likely from what you say. I copied your notes to the article talk page to help explain the deletion. Mike Christie(talk)10:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raedburh
If you have time, another question -- Raedburh/Redburga. The article on Egbert currently says "Egbert married Redburga, a Frankish princess (possibly a sister or sister-in-law of the emperor Charlemagne), and had two sons and a daughter." I can't find any mention of her, or the children other than Aethelwulf, in anything I've got or anything that looks reliable on Google Books. I assume this is one of those bits of information that comes solely from a cryptic reference in the Annals of St. Bertin or something like that. Do you have any idea what the source is for this? Mike Christie(talk)10:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm going to cut mention of her; nobody I trust talks about her. I'll make a copy of your notes on the Egbert talk page. I will also fix the infobox; thanks for that. Haven't touched the lead yet either; was going to do that last. I think it's getting closer. Mike Christie(talk)03:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Egbert
If you have the time and the inclination, I'd be glad of any additional feedback that occurs to you on Egbert. I've now added everything I've got a source for, removed everything unsourced, and rewritten the lead. I think the organization is now right. The only thing I know is missing is something on the coinage during Egbert's time; I don't have good refs for that stuff but I'm hopeful that Angus will be able to help there, as I see he's been scanning old numismatic pictures into Aldfrith. I've looked for more on Cornish placenames, but I don't have anything to add to what you've already done. I will be working on making the references consistent, and cleaning up any wikilinking problems, and probably a final copyedit. Any input you have time for would be much appreciated. Thanks -- Mike Christie(talk)18:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should definitely nominate this article for "Did You Know". I'd be happy to make a 100x100px crop of the portrait to go with it. - PKM23:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Warning - original research! I compared Image:Nicolas de Neufville, seigneur de Villeroy.jpg, and it's a close match in hairstyle, beard, and collar to several other portraits dated 1520-25; although the source site for the image identifies it as the 1543-1617 de Neufville, I think it may be the grandson (1598-1685) in his late 20s (compare Image:Villeroy,_Nicolas_V.jpg - note the noses!)
I have not been able to find another version of this image anywhere.
As for Catherine, there's a vicious circle - art historians date paintings on the basis of costume, and costume historians date costumes on the basis of portraits. And has everyone assumed the minature of Catherine must be prior to 1559 precisely because she is not wearing a widow's cap? The sleeves certainly look like they might be later, but the face and hair look right for 1555. For now, I have to trust the specialists.
Good article! I hope that Spanish Netherlands better covers tapestry-making towns in the Low Countries than Netherlands did. I linked your fine article to Joyous Entry, which would benefit from your attention I feel. I find one of your sources off the mark in suggesting that a decision to delete a royal figure could be imagined, in the world of court art and patronage, to have been influenced in any way by the designer of the cartoons. --Wetman05:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of: "Iambic pentambic poets write iambicly pentambicly. They are noted for their iambicness pentambicness." But it didn't seem to quite fit the bill. AndyJones18:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. Sorry to bug you, but I'm looking for guidance on a question about an image. I'm currently helping Al Ameer son work on Yasser Arafat, and the article mentions Arafat's appearance on the cover of the Dec. 13, 1968 Time. Can we include this in the article under the fair use rationale? I've never done a fair-use image, so I figured I'd ask someone who is very knowledgeable. Thanks in advance for your help. – Scartol · Talk21:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's cool. I really don't like using 'em, but it does relate directly to his rise to fame/prominence, and there's no alternative image for the event. I'll look into it. Cheers! – Scartol · Talk22:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In pages 108-109, of Stefano Ticozzi it distinguishes them and notes that both were Florentines and working at Fountainbleu; it is quite
possible that time has created two individuals from one original. All I can go by for now is Ticozzi, sometimes Getty ULAN can clarify. Googlebooks has only digitized the second volume of Michael Bryans dictionary of painters and engravers..CARAVAGGISTI04:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I had checked the main text, but not the footnotes, which I have just been doing. Nonetheless, "technical incompetence" needs qualifying - Duvet is a very skilled engraver indeed, or the prints would look like mush. But his figure drawing is not great, and his compositional ideas - clearly wholly deliberate - are very personal. Johnbod02:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Catherine de' Medici's colonne de l'horoscope, next to the Bourse de Commerce in Paris.
Yes, it does sound convincing. Sir Carchlock strikes again! A brilliant discovery about "Walke Pauls", I must say! And there was me trying to be all William Empson about it. What an odd place to go for news, though, a cathedral. Of course, churches were dens of iniquity in those days, now I come to think about it. Pepys used to go to different ones each week according to which woman he wanted to chat up, which he did during the sermon. It was almost the only chance there was to get a respectable lady at your mercy.
Catherine de' Medici was also very interested in comets, I've been finding out. She had this tower (right) built for her astronomers to study the sky from. Looks a bit puny now, doesn't it; but it was quite something in its day.qp10qp17:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A blast from the past! It seems like that message was from months ago, but the response was well worth waiting for! I might even get round to writing something on the comet that inspired James I. Confusingly, it seems there were three comets, which is why I went off the idea of that article. Carcharoth19:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry I couldn't help you out at Shakespeare. I've been so sick for the past two days. And I still have to teach. You know how that goes. I hope the article will soon be restored to its old self. Awadewit | talk17:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VRM chugs on
If you have a moment, could you respond to Roger? He has taken the AE/BE debate to the MOS pages. I am too sick to deal with that right now. No wiki-stress for me, only wiki-fun. Thanks. Awadewit | talk02:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Care to do a peer review?
Hey there. Let me start by saying that I'm very much aware that I still have unresolved work to do at Honoré de Balzac. I appreciate the comments you left there and I do plan to address those concerns.
However, I've also been very busy on the article about Nigerian novelist Chinua Achebe. It's in a semi-decent shape now, and I wonder if you'd be willing to offer a peer review? I know you're busy, but I would be your best friend forever and ever. Thanks in advance! – Scartol · Talk00:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you x ∞ for your review. I've made most of the revisions you've suggested (and explained those I haven't made). Please let me know if you have other concerns or questions.
Also, I wonder what your thoughts are on redlinks on articles proposed for FAC. Would I be advised to make stubs to eliminate the redlinks? Or remove the links if the article isn't likely to be made any time soon? (I remember reading this somewhere.) Or is it normal for FAC articles to have a few red words here and there? Thanks again. – Scartol · Talk00:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing: I've seen some FACs recently which call attention to the length of the article being nominated; I know CA is pretty long. Do you think I need to trim it down at all, or just submit it as is? – Scartol · Talk00:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With thanks again for your feedback and reviewing, it's my pleasure to inform you that Mr. Achebe is now up for FA consideration. If you have a moment, perhaps you'd care to add your two cents? Cheers. – Scartol · Talk01:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You and your literary allusions! =) "The center can hold" indeed. I hope you're right; I will do my best to avoid a big long argument. Thank you kindly for your wisdom and guidance. – Scartol · Talk16:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
G'Day!
Hello, Cupie-ten-Cupie! What a beautiful landscape you have on your page! I look out on the steel works, the coal loader, the port and the grain terminal. At least I used to, until my neighbours built their blinking extension! The grain terminal has an enomous row of silos which change colour with the light and, on the very rare rainy day (seven years of drought) a rainbow always arched right over them and disappeared in the port. Well, my jjacarandas are about to do their Novemmber thing and are going to be glorious. In manny places they are planted alternately with Illawarra Flame Trees and make an extraordinary contrast of colour, but my flame tree is covered with leaves, which means it just wont this year..... you realise that I'm writing all this bbecause you obviously take delight in these things.... now what I really wanted to say was "Thank you very much!" and "Congratulations" to you as well, because you obviously had a part in the success of Shakespeare.... the FArticle anyway! (Hey that's quite fuuny... I'm sure Will the Bard would have loved it.) You know the memorial to Shakespeare in Southwark Cathedral... well, my youngest son found chewing gum up Will's left nostril, so every time we are in the UK, he wants to go and see if it's happened again.
Hi, qp -- I wonder if you'd be interested in an Anglo-Saxon question that's come up. I received some comments at the Wiglaf of Mercia FAC, which is here, about the terminology. That led me to create a few suggested terminology rules. I've put them here, on a subpage of mine. I thought you might be interested in them: if you have time, let me know what you think -- either edit them, or post a note on that talk page or on my regular talk page. Thanks -- Mike Christie(talk)16:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Le Gris
I'm going to stop commenting now, in case it seems like I'm picking on that article. The trouble is that my particular specialist period at university was 1360–1460 (my thesis was on trade relations between England and Burgundy under Henry V; I nominated the article Jogaila at FA, though I don't usually write articles on my specialist period). This means that I can sense the problem a mile off here. I don't intend to deflate Jacky (though I know that is possible and it makes me nervous). What I really hope is that he/she will take the point and go on to write articles from only the best sources in future. If one does that, even a non-specialist cannot go too far wrong. You mention Wiglaf: now there's a case. Mike is not a specialist, and he makes that clear himself. Yet he knows exactly what good sources are, and by sticking to those (and attending carefully to comments at FAC), he writes superb articles. qp10qp13:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jacky is conscientious, works hard to produce worthy articles and is, I think, resilient. From reviews I read yesterday the book is faction (I'll be interested to see how it actually describes itself). I was puzzled by the inappropriate vocabulary and, like you, surprised by the detail. By comparison, only three scanty eye-witness accounts survive of Agincourt though, in contrast, much survives about Joan of Arc. Incidentally, is there a link between Jogaila and Anglo-Burgundian trade, other than them being contemporaneous? --ROGER DAVIESTALK
No, no link. I was referring to my larger specialism of 1360–1460. The only link I can think of is that both Burgundy and England often sent "crusaders" to fight against the Lithuanians. Henry V's father, Henry Bolingbroke, took part in one of the sieges of Vilnius. I don't usually edit in this period, because I want to extend my range of knowledge; however, I ventured into Poland and Lithuania because I never really looked further east than Bohemia when I was at university (I might check out late medieval Russia/Muscovy, too, some day).qp10qp17:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. I usually avoid writing about my, um, specialist areas (such as they are) to avoid Wikipedia becoming a busman's holiday, which amounts to be pretty much the same thing I suppose. --ROGER DAVIESTALK15:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The book arrived first post today. No citations as such but explanations about sources, chapter by chapter, in a section at the end. It refers to a large number of original documents in the Bibliothèque nationale, transcripts of proceedings, statements, records of military service, feudal dues etc; following these up is original research. In my view, it provides enough information to do a barebones article, using hearsay sourcing. --ROGER DAVIESTALK11:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think "barebones" is possible, too. But this would mean removing all coloured language from the article text, or quoting along the lines of "Froissart says this", "according to this source, a witness in court said such and such", etc. I savaged Siege of Vienna on that basis (check the talk page for the chunks I ripped out: like a killjoy, I de-dramatised the whole article and made it rather dull, I fear). The bottom line is that it is just not possible to tell medieval history as a ripping yarn and be taken seriously. For example, there is plenty in Długosz about Jogaila, and even though he was attached at one point to the household of Jogaila's fourth wife, and though his father fought for Jogaila, he simply can't be taken as a reliable source, given the florid details he conjures up. As you say, there is certainly value in hearsay sources if handled cautiously.
I am working on some articles connected to Catherine de' Medici at the moment. There are only two recent biographies in English: one is a plodding, careful, little-known work by a historian (Knecht: invaluable); the other is a rip-roaring bestseller (Leonie Frieda: handle with care), praised for reading like a novel, by an author who gets interviewed on television and is something of a personality. This second book, probably like the Jager, is of use, if one carefully checks what sources are referenced and compares against the historian's book and other scholarly sources. (On the other hand, the newspaper reviews wrongly praise Frieda for her research, whereas I can see where most of her information and insights come from: she recycles any juicy story, regardless of the dubiousness of gossipy and credulous contemporary sources, and I see no evidence of serious scholarship on primary sources). As a history graduate, one has an instinct, hopefully, for what is believable. Of course, one can pillage the primary quotes even from a racy read and reframe them hedgingly: I often do that, because historical quotes are gold dust if one does not have access to the primary sources in question. qp10qp12:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No mystery. Glance at your keyboard. Just wanted an inconspicuous internet nom that I wouldn't forget. I'm not brave enough to put my real name up. qp10qp12:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking. I don't have time for that sort of thing! Curse my natural inclination toward helping others! – Scartol · Talk18:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Catherine de' Medici's building projects – I hate to say I can't do it, but I don't know when I'll have the time. I'm doing the Song thing right now, and my grades are due for school soon. If I haven't taken any action, remind me in a week?
Re: the triplets – I hope I'm not being premature in offering to show people the ropes; do my three months of work (with a few weeks stretched out over previous years) really qualify me? On the other hand, I am a teacher, so I suppose I can file it under "Those who can't…". =) – Scartol · Talk16:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for a reviewer before FA
Hi Qp10qp. Awadewit referred me to you. I have been working on an article, John Knox, and I was wondering if you could take a look either through a reviewer's or a copyeditor's eyes. I should mention that I cannot match neither yours nor Awadewit's scholarly output or English abilities. But any assistance would be appreciated! --RelHistBuff13:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Medici
I never review your articles, because they're always perfect :-) But I couldn't resist peeking at Medici, and I'm glad I got to actually make a small addition to the lead of a real Medici !! Now I'm going to go look at RHB's article, after I pout about why he didn't ask me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha. Perfect, you must be joking! I'm making notes on old Knoxy at the moment, as it happens. (Yep, first I work on paper! How jolly old fashioned.) qp10qp23:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It needs a very heavy copyedit, and I'm going to give it one. Has potential though. Of course, I'm going to nag poor Rel about his sources, but what's new?
Nb, I remember you saying somewhere that you never support at FAC unless an article's 40kb or under. Cath's bps are 41 or so at the moment, and I'm determined to get my first Sandy support if it's the last thing I do. Now, you go and have a hot drink of Lemsip and a lie down and forget all about those nasty dashes.qp10qp00:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you got that all wrong :-) I never support if readable prose per WP:SIZE is above 50KB. Catherine's prose size is a very nice 21KB. On the other hand, you dabble into architecture and you may trigger some of my other reasons for not being able to support :-) I'm taking Airborne, which is complete quackery, but placebo effect and all that ... are you telling me I've never supported an article of yours? How RUDE of me!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Oh dear Sandy, I didn't forget you! I just thought you already had your hands full with FAC, FAR, etc.. Thanks for the tip on the dash script; I'll clean them up after Qp10qp has gone through it. And thanks in advance, Qp10qp. Yes, I guess it's pretty clear my prose skills are not up to par and I really appreciate your help... anything that will keep User:Tony1 from having fits when he sees the article at FAC! :-) As for WP:SIZE, Knox is nearing 60KB. so I assume it will need some reduction like you suggested for Joseph Priestly. --RelHistBuff11:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wiglaf's ancestry
Qp, if you have a minute, could you take a look at the first paragraph in this section of Wiglaf? Awadewit has been reviewing the article at FAC, and is now supporting, but she did suggest that the paragraph describing theories of different sources for Mercian kings in the 820s needs clarification. The relevant discussion is down near the bottom of the FAC nomination. I think she's probably right, but it's one of those cases where I'm too close to the prose and can't really see how to improve it. Any suggestions would be very much appreciated. Thanks -- Mike Christie(talk)03:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I always appreciate a review from you, but there are several supports there right now so there's no need; plus I suspect it will promote next pass -- probably this weekend, since Raul's not done a pass for a while. I think I'm going to do Wulfhere next, and then maybe Offa, which will be a bigger challenge. Though I'm about to go on a long road trip so that may slow me down a bit.
Thanks for the paragraph rewrite -- it looks good to me, but I don't have the sources with me so I'll have to look again tonight and see if there are tweaks needed. I appreciate it, as always. (And thanks for the compliment I noticed a thread or two above; I'll try to deserve it.) Mike Christie(talk)14:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said I should suggest articles for you to have a look at, after I looked at Catherine. Well, here are a few suggestions: Serge Voronoff and Astronomische Nachrichten. Not much else, I'm afraid, unless you want to dabble in expanding a very short stub: 1356 Basel earthquake. Any mention of earthquakes in your books? We talked about comets before. Maybe volcanic eruptions? Just some ideas. Carcharoth18:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, none of this actually comes into my range of interests, but I obviously want to return the favour for the peer review and am prepared to eat a hundredweight of salt. Hooke does interest me a tiny bit because of his lovely drawings (at school, I was rubbish at science but best at the drawings). Unlike you two, I am horribly narrow in my interests: history, arts, literature, and that's about it—and only narrow parts of them at that. But it's been wonderful to discover Wikipedia and find that I can actually put these interests to use. qp10qp13:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it. Stick to what you know best - and don't say "history, arts, literature" is narrow! That is broader than most people's interests! I think I get much the better part of the bargain, reading what you write. :-) I've read the Knox article. Did you ever get around to the Darnley murder plot? Carcharoth14:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, ha. Very funny and double-edged. Of course, 30% of us don't vote for far-right parties in the elections (OK, 30% of us don't even vote, but lets brush over that). I take it you are "Roger from London"! qp10qp13:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I though some of the letters were fabulous (yes, you saw through my cunning disguise). And talking of voting, now's a good time to trot out the seasonally-apt adage about Guy Fawkes being the only man to enter Parliament with honest intentions. --ROGER DAVIESTALK14:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, SandyGeorgia recommended you as somebody who might make a good admin. If you would be interested in being nominated, please drop me a note on my talk page. Tim Vickers04:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the review. I believe I've addressed most of your comments (just researching the others); would you mind striking those comments you feel have been addressed? CloudNine15:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A listserv that I subscribe to has recently been having a discussion on good Clare books. Since we might work on that page, I thought I would list them here before I forget:
Bate biography
Clare: The Critical Heritage
John Clare in Context
New Approaches to John Clare
Paul Chirico's John Clare and the Imagination of the Reader
I know you are relieved that it is nearly over, but there is one missing item. Do you have the page number in Marshall concerning her statement on Knox’s return to Geneva (see Talk:John_Knox#Those_Bowes)? By the way, I know Knox was a killjoy, but I have found an interesting item in another biography. It seems in 1571, he took a short break from his post in St Giles and returned to East Lothian. There, he was joined by old friends and took part in a céilidh where he supposedly “moved the crowd to joyous merriment”. Do you think it’s worth including this in the article? With the proper citation, of course. ;-) --RelHistBuff08:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I hope you understood that the biography item was a joke. I just thought the mental picture of Knox dancing merrily was so hilarious. --RelHistBuff22:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's good joke, too. He once said that the moment Mary Queen of Scots' "French fillocks, fiddlers and others of that band got the house alone, there might be seen skipping not very comely for honest women".
The ref for your query is Marshall, pp. 85–86, by the way. I'll put it on the talk page.qp10qp
