This is an archive of past discussions with User:Wadewitz. 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.
As far as I can tell, editing the FAC discussion was closed while I was typing the following response to your response. I'm going to put it here so you can see it. Tomorrow I'll decide (or you can) whether to add it to the article's talk page.
Explaining "the how": How is Kinbote parasitic on Shade? How is Shade's poem mediocre? How did Shade influence Kinbote's contributions? The reader needs details. Yes, this is an encyclopedia, but it is very hard to follow this description without the details. Awadewit | talk09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
That helps, especially as your second example wouldn't have occurred to me as "how". (I'm a bit literal sometimes.) Boyd's argument would be very hard to summarize or exemplify, though. —JerryFriedman(Talk)06:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
If no one believes Myers's theory, why is it included here? Is it a "fringe" theory of literary criticism? Usually, we try and include the "standard" readings of novels. I like to think of it as: What would be taught in a undergraduate class? Awadewit | talk09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned Myers's theory because it's in one of the two books written on PF, a book that's of more interest (imo) in pointing out various connections and allusions. But since I don't think anyone believes the theory, I thought two words was the right amount to spend on it.
The closest thing I know of to a "standard reading" is that Zembla doesn't exist, Kinbote is Botkin, and Gradus is Jack Grey, as mentioned in the article. However, lots of people find it inadequate or have other ideas. As for what's taught to undergrads, that's been discussed on NABOKV-L and I can go back and check. My faint recollection is of encouragement of open-ended discussion rather than presentation of previous readings, but don't quote me. —JerryFriedman(Talk)06:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
As for political readings, I don't know of any. That word is from the jacket copy of a recent edition. I suppose it would be good to find one (not that I'd put much stock in it) or delete the word.
I suggest more research, then. There undoubtedly are some. Political readings have been a popular kind of literary criticism for the last thirty years or so. Awadewit | talk09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
When I said "good to find one", I had more research in mind. By the way, when I was in high school thirty years ago, political readings were already popular enough to get into our textbooks.
It's strange, though, that I haven't found any relevant matches on JSTOR (which Google can search but, as you guessed, I can't see) and can't recall any articles or books mentioning a political reading even to dismiss it. —JerryFriedman(Talk)06:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Genre—though I'm responsible for the dubious "Literary" in the infobox, what little I know about literary theory suggests that this novel is not in a genre, that is, one cannot come to it with expectations of what one will find or how to read it. I hope someone who knows more than I do will take this question on.
Again, more research will help you. The infobox is irrelevant (and deceiving, as you can tell). Books and articles written by literary scholars will explain the genre (even if it is it's own genre). Awadewit | talk09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to do that much research—a first look suggests that I'd have to go to grad school to understand the many meanings of "genre". I will delete that field from the infobox, though. —JerryFriedman(Talk)06:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Style—is this about the unusual narrative structure, or Kinbote's prose and Shade's poetry, or both? Is someone going to have to read Pekka Tammi?
It is about whatever scholars focus on - that is the key here. What do scholars focus on. In literary articles, we are restricted to what literary scholars have written about. They are our sources. What elements of the style do they think are important? Awadewit | talk09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Themes—is this like the Relation of Art and Reality, or the plums mentioned here and there, or both? If it's something like the plums, I think one example of a theme, with a mention that there are many others, would be enough.
I must disagree with your comment on OR. In general, selecting material and deciding what length to present it at are absolutely among our tasks as editors, and are not forbidden at WP:OR You even referred to the necessity of doing so above when you mentioned limiting interpretations to the ones taught in college classes. Specifically, a mere list of themes would be quite long, and you'd want it expanded as you do the allusions section. By the way, I have scholarly sources for the two themes I mentioned.
I thought literary influence was out of style since it's so hard to discuss objectively. (I shouldn't believe everything I read on the Internet.) A cursory search of the Web doesn't turn up anything, and I don't know of anything. Has anybody ever said his or her fiction was influenced by PF, or made a good case that someone else's was?
Literary influence is not out of style, as far as I know! Like I explain below, the web won't help you when it comes to literature. You (or someone) is going to have do serious library work. :) Awadewit | talk09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the information on influence studies. Maybe the person was from a school of criticism that disfavored them and ignored anyone who disagreed. It's surprising, though, that nothing comes up on searches for "'Pale Fire' 'influenced by'" and the like.
I can't imagine a full discussion of all those allusions and references. For just the one to Frost, here is a whole essay (which should probably be cited), and I could go on for some paragraphs about the significance of Frost in PF without saying anything that's in that essay. But I have no desire to layer and frost an unambiguous encyclopedia article into the monstrous semblance of a monograph (see note to lines 47–48). The list of allusions wasn't my idea, but I think it does educate the reader by showing the variety of external allusions and giving links. I must admit, though, that it may not be very helpful to include something like "lemniscate", since the reader can just look up the word.
Well, I wouldn't discuss all of the allusions, anyway. (Following the WikiProject Novel guidelines too slavishly is a recipe for disaster.) Lists of allusions don't educate the reader, because they usually don't know the allusions (I know this from teaching literature to college students, sadly). Again, I think any discussion of allusions should be focused around the scholarship. See Ulysses (poem) for an excellent example of this. Awadewit | talk09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I hope for replies to the above and for further comments. Even if I don't agree with them, someone else may (or you can apply them yourself). —JerryFriedman(Talk)20:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The key to answering many of these questions is research. Unfortunately, most academics in the humanities don't publish on the internet. You will have go to the library or - if you have access to a university library - you can do research on the "deep web", as they say. For example, you (or someone interested in researching this article) needs to use the MLA database, which lists all of the articles and books published in literary criticism. Typing in key words like 'Pale Fire" and "Nabokov" will go a long way to getting you excellent sources. The second database I would try is JSTOR. Many excellent public libraries have these and all university research libraries do. Awadewit | talk09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You might be surprised at how much literary scholarship is available on the Web. As I mentioned, you can search JSTOR and other databases even if you can't see the results. What's more useful is Google Book Search and Amazon's "Search Inside". Of course, as you say, it's still not the majority of what you could find at a good university library, preferably one with complete runs of Nabokov Studies and The Nabokovian. I have done some library research for this article (with interlibrary loan), but at this point, I have sources right here at home that I can use to improve other Wikipedia articles, and I'll probably be doing that for a while instead of finding a place to access JSTOR. There are still well-sourced improvements I can make to this article, though.
Anyway, thanks again for your comments! Especially considering you're taking time from your dissertation. I'm familiar with the process (physics version), so you have all my best wishes for success. —JerryFriedman(Talk)06:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on the GA. I just read it through again, and it's looking in good shape. Some people might not like the laying out of contradictory views, but I do—in the same way I like hatched colours in Van Gogh or reading six versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in parallel. In fact, the article becomes by default an intriguing exercise in the difficulty of encapsulating someone's life, particularly that of non-literary figures like Imlay. (And, who knows, the literary figures may have sent out elaborate smokescreens of words that we, for want of other evidence, submissively inhale.)
Only three points:
I never did find a source for the following as a statement of fact:
Imlay begged to be allowed to stay with them because life in Godwin's house was unbearable, with the constant financial worries and Mrs. Godwin's insistent haranguing. However, Shelley refused...
I've not read everything, of course. I feel this needs dating precisely, if it is justified by letters, or framed as a biographer's supposition, if it is not.
The wording gives a slight impression that Shelley and Godwin were working together when they tracked her to Swansea.
Tried to clarify this - I didn't want to go into all of travel details (the back and forth of Godwin and Shelley, etc.) Let me know if you think I should. Awadewit | talk05:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't picture the tollbooth. The image that comes into my mind is probably quite wrong for what happened (I hope they got a room). qp10qp (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the new titles. Just what I need! Actually, they'll have to wait until I'm done with the East Timor thing. So, you know, seven years from now. =) Cheers. – Scartol • Tok02:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Sir Gawain again
Hope everything's alright! In any case, I've finished going through Scartol's comments and am ready for the next round. Wrad (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I nominated it here. There are two links that come up odd in the link checker - the nps.gov database for NRHP listings where you have to enter the terms and search to find the items. We can explain those if anyone is concerned about them. I am calling it a night. Thanks again for all your work on this to date - it has been a joy, hopefully this FAC will go as smoothly, Ruhrfisch><>°°05:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I tweaked the description of the odd link (explicitly said it is a Searchable Database) in the Bibliography section to hopefully make it clearer. It is the only online ref from the NRHP/NPS that gives the date of inclusion in the NRHP, so I think it is worth keeping as a ref. I also made the Dickinson College ref format consistent with all the others - it was only in the Notes and not in the Bibliography before - please check my attempt at MLA style. Finally, I found the "imported carpenters from Philadelphia" source I had read again, here. It is the other link from the NRHP searchable database page (one is the NHL listing, the other is this). Since it cites no sources and incorrectly gives the year of "discovering" oxygen as 1776, I think is OK to ignore, especially given the uncertainties of more reliable sources on the whole importing carpenters issue. Ruhrfisch><>°°17:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This thing all things devours/Birds, beasts, trees, flowers...
...and I still can't get enough of it. ;) Here's that Mondrian I wrote to you of. The rose-colored circle has radial unity; the golden vertical bar has length π — but why? Hints to the riddle are strewn throughout the image, but it's meant for the wonderfully wizardly (witchy?) and geometrically genial. ;) And for stubborn ones as well; as Schiller says, Nur dem Ernst, den keine Mühe bleichet, rauscht der Wahrheit tief versteckter Born. ;) Ta ta, gotta fly, and welcome back, Willow (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's see. The radius of the rose-colored circle is exactly one, and the golden vertical bar has length π. If lines or circles look tangent, then they generally are, especially if they have the same colour. For example, the grey circles at the left are all tangent to one another and to the horizontal grey lines, which are in turn tangent to the green/cyan circles on the right. The lowest, lightest grey line is also tangent to the rose-colored circle. The black square is inscribed within the rose-colored circle, and the initial yellow circle is tangent to both. If you look closely, there's a four-way meeting point on the right, where the purple circle crosses the vertical green and gold bars; the purple circle also skims the horizontal green bar at both of its ends, one of which is on the vertical red y-axis. All the constructions should be possible with compass and straightedge, although sometimes you need to construct a tangent line to the circle or a circle that passes through three given points.
Big hint: the figure illustrates an iteration, as suggested by the sequence of grey and green circles. Unfortunately, the sequence of yellow circles is much harder to see. All the yellow circles are symmetrical about the horizontal red x-axis; the variable a measures the distance to the center of the yellow circle, whereas the corresponding b is calculated from the length of the tangent to that circle, as I tried to show with that short yellow line segment. The diameter of the yellow circle for a given iteration equals the difference of a-b from the previous iteration. Those yellow circles are so hard to see because their radius shrinks so quickly. :( A green circle always intersects the yellow circle of the same iteration on the x-axis. The purple circle is symmetrical about the vertical black line that measures the ultimate value of a and b.
I hope those are enough hints to bring you several happy hours of amusement, playing with compasses and rulers and a blank canvas of paper. Indeed, the prize is "more golden than gold", as Sappho was fond of saying. ;) Willow (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I wonder what you think about the case for semi-protection at Jane Austen. Vandalism seems to be on the rise there and seems to pop up right after the semi-protection is lifted. Advice would be welcome. Awadewit | talk21:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit reluctant to put any long-term protection on Jane Austen, as it is a fairly high-profile article. Although this means it is more likely to be vandalized, it also means that there are probably far more people watching the article and ready to revert any bogus edits. To give you an idea of the difference, Jane Austen gets 10 times as many hits on Google than Mary Wollstonecraft. Kaldari (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi -- I replied to your email; in the meantime take a look here, at the top of the page. The underlying file is User:Deckiller/FAC urgents, which you can watch directly if you want to know when it changes. These are the articles that really need reviewing most. Mike Christie(talk)04:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you added the template in the first place. From what I can see here, the blockquote isn't beside a picture, and therefore doesn't need the template. What am I missing? – Scartol • Tok18:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I reduced the font size and I think I saw what you saw. I would recommend moving the image down a paragraph, so that the quote is entirely beside it. – Scartol • Tok18:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Too funny
The even odder/funnier thing is that when I saw the orange bar (from you), I had just finished reading Fanny Imlay to start a peer review - I figured if I could follow it (and I almost always did) then almost anyone could. I will have some comments eventually, have to reply an a certain FAC first and the real world beckons. Well written and very detailed (of course), but what a sad, sad story. Ruhrfisch><>°°19:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I would really appreciate it. Someone has archived the PR already, but just post your comments to the talk page. Awadewit | talk01:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
All the peer reviews were moved to archive files, but the PR request is still open (the process is being automated, which is why the file was moved). I will try to get to it tomorrow. Ruhrfisch><>°°02:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I am also pleasantly surprised by the FAC to date. My last one was a nomination by an editor who had made 10 edits to the article and didn't bother to check with others who had worked on it, then became ill and could not help with the FAC. We basically rewrote it on the fly. Ugh! I have added poor Fanny and all the article with Priestley in the title to my watchlist, and AR too. Would it make sense to look at the OED and see when the word "tollbooth" came into being in English? My guess is it was a tollhouse and the French got translated as toll booth in modern times. Ruhrfisch><>°°22:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It's going to take me a few days to get back to Imlay and the phantom toolbooth. I'm currently working with another editor to make little articles for the redlinks on Boydell Shakespeare Gallery. There are just too many to bring it FAC. That's why my name keeps appearing on DYK. :) I saw you recently received the coveted top/pictured spot! Nice work! I have several projects like Imlay and Boydell that don't require much work to bring up to FA. I'm planning on finishing those off and then taking a big break from wikipedia. Thanks for watching those articles, by the way. I figured you would be watching Joseph Priestley House, anyway! Awadewit | talk22:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No hurry on Fanny - Phantom Tollbooth is one of my favorites. Congrats on the DYKs and thanks back. My two latest DYKs were both red links on Priestley House originally. Do you ever use {{maintained}}? I have added it to the talk page of all FAs and FLs I am a major contributor to - would you be OK with that on Priestley House? Finally, while we will miss you, please do what is best for you and your dissertation. Take care, Ruhrfisch><>°°03:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm waiting for Roger's latest verdict on the current state of dear Emily, and then there will surely be a little fiddling and rewriting here and there, but I'm hoping that it'll be fit enough for FAC sometime next month. *crosses fingers*
You know, I've been watching the infobox debate for Austen, and I although I can somewhat understand the proponents for it, if only because of uniformity, I don't agree with one being in that article in particular. I say it should be judged on a case-by-case basis. With a stub article, infobox can be useful in showing information that is not readily visible or even present in the article yet. But for Austen, which is very nearly comprehensive, or with the recently featured Daniel Boone, for example, it's just silly to repeat key items that are obvious or already stated in the lead. I cringe to look at Boone now that the infobox (which wasn't there before it was TFA) is there. Oh, and this morning I removed this one from Summerset Fox: talk about useless! "17th century", indeed. ;) María(habla conmigo) 19:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you sense my frustration? :) I wish infoboxes had never been invented. My favorite is the novel infobox on non-novel pages. I look forward to seeing Emily at FAC. Awadewit | talk02:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Introduction to evolution
Thank you so much for your invaluable assistance in getting us to FA. We never could have done it without you. It is a shame that User: Random Replicator became so embattled that he quit Wikipedia and had his account deleted, but I think that his desertion (and same with Wassupwestcoast) and placing the article up for AfD was necessary to draw attention to the difficulty faced by the article, which was being attacked and impaled on a number of different issues. Thank you again. --Filll (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to the aforementioned debate, Awadewit. As for the limitations imposed by having to finish one's dissertation, I deeply sympathize. --Markus Poessel (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I made a little animation for X-ray crystallography today, which is oozing its way towards FAC — I can't knit forever. ;) Unfortunately, the animation is rather long and I'm worried it could be much better. Could you please look at it and tell me how I might shorten it or clarify it or change the camera angle or something like that? Anything that occurs to you right away would be helpful. I'm going to lighten it later tonight and maybe figure out to make the φ and κ labels larger. Willow (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll let Simmaren know too. Feedback either on my talk page or on the image talk page would work. Let me know what you'd like changed, and if there are errors. Mike Christie(talk)18:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Reviewers
Yes! Oh goodness, that's the major gap: how do we recognize and award good reviewers? There was discussion on my talk here, but no resolution. The problem: it's much harder to quantify who has "saved" an article or done a truly good review, versus, say, quantifying who has nomitated at FAC. Lists like WP:WBFAN are merely a list of production: X nominated Y. But that's it—it doesn't account for helpers, copyeditors, and reviewers.
Hello Awadewit. Sorry to bother, but I thought that I would ask for your help. You had been very helpful several months ago with your peer review of the William Stacy article, and I appreciate. Recently, I submitted the article for a biography A-class review, but I notice that the A-class review process seems much slower than the peer review process. That is, I’m afraid that the review might be “closed” without any real review. After several weeks, I have had only brief comments by one reviewer, John Carter. So, I have just now asked John Carter if he can help with further review, and I thought that perhaps you could also help. Thank you very much. Best regards, ColWilliam (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey Awadewit thanks for the cheerful words. Just what I needed! :-) I'm gonna try for a record of two months with no login. Wish me luck. Later! Ling.Nut (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added all the page on your watchlist subpage to my own watchlist; I won't be competent to do much more than revert obvious vandalism, but I can certainly do that. Mike Christie(talk)21:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Awadewit! I just did likewise; there were only a handful missing. :) The vandals had best beware our wariness; together, we'll be like the eyes of Argos. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;) Good luck with the dissertation, and I'll try to finish that project soon, although my mechanical helpers are still being uncooperative; I can always do it by hand, though. :) Willow (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
PS. I'm going to miss you; the colors of Wikipedia will fade while you're gone. :( But I daresay, I won't be the only one, and we all want you to do superlatively on your dissertation, On Self, by Selfless. ;) Good luck and God speed, Willow (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out! I'm not going away totally - just trying to severely cut back. We'll see how I do! (By the way, do you think you could have our little project done by Pi Day?) Awadewit | talk19:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I know, I'm freaking out! I thought I'd have to wait until the bear's next birthday to nominate it for TFA, so this is awesome. I'm especially looking forward to the discussions on the talk page about whether or not Knut is notable enough to warrant an article. Fun! Good luck on the twenty pager; I saw your banner above and I'll try to help with Wollstonecraft and Austen, since they're both already on my watchlist. Take care, María(habla conmigo) 16:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! Hopefully none of those discussions take place on the fourth. The discussions I've seen tend to be, ah, a lot more, shall we say, small? Perhaps they'll ask about punctuation, for example. :) Awadewit | talk19:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, it appears I missed your last reply on my talk page. It sounds like a good assignment. I have had interesting experience with asking students to review some statistics - like compare data from 'economy of country x' to that country data on CIA World Factbook. Sometimes Wiki is better; sometimes it's not - but one cannot say that CIAWF is always more accurate. I wonder if in time we will after all switch to using wiki for referencing... but certainly this is not something to do now - it is not accurate enough, and the 'old guard' would eat us alive for suggesting it anyway :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I saw your name on the list of Peer Review volunteers, and I humbly request your comments and thoughts on the article Preludes (Chopin). I and others on the Wikiproject Classical Music have worked our hardest for the improvement and reconstruction of this article, but, frankly, we have a long way to go. Hopefully, your experienced feedback will better of the article to the status that it deserves. Thanks for your consideration! --~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical?20:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You've been sending in some great articles through DYK. As a reviewer, I find myself stopping to read them all. They're very interesting and informative to boot. Keep up the fabulous work! AgneCheese/Wine20:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
PS, I no idea why this barnstar makes the font so big. Sorry if this becomes a distraction on your talk page. Feel free to remove it. :) AgneCheese/Wine20:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
On 3 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George Nicol, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 3 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Bowyer, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On February 4, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joseph Farington, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Beware the ides of March! ;) I think I can promise to get that done in time. I'm going to try to thaw my frozen helper today; once he's awake, it should go quickly. Any preferences on the material, pattern or color? There might be a stowaway aboard, too. ;)
I'm concerned that a thin, jersey-knitted fabric like that wouldn't stuff very well or hold up very long, compared to a woven fabric. Let me experiment a bit and get back to you? My helper is still being annoyingly sluggish. :( Willow (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
No - I only knew because I saw the reason for the request. I am planning on going to the grocery store today since every one else will be watching "The Game". Awadewit | talk16:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
PPS. On a more serious note, that was horrible news about the Lane Bryant massacre, wasn't it? When I read about it, I felt a deep pang of sympathy for the women killed; life is just not fair sometimes. :(
I didn't want to take away from those, either; it's a sorrowful world. I was especially sad to hear about Kenya, which had been doing well for so long. I have to believe that they'll reconcile somehow, because the alternative is too dark to imagine. BTW, I don't think anyone could think you're a terrible person, least of all me; perish the thought! :) Affectionately, Willow (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured it was a formatting issue with the maps more than anything else (although I'm surprised no one in the FAC suggested taking the image sizes down to thumb level, where most readers' preference settings (mine are at a cozy 300px after some of the militants in the US Roads project insisted on that in New York State Route 52) will take over and give you space). I wouldn't have wanted to lose the maps either.
As for the salient facts being in the lede graf, there is not (nor, IMO, should there be) a standard order in which they're presented, nor are they always in the lede graf. And they can sometimes get accidentally edited out. A lot depends on the individual editor or editors writing the article, and I don't think it's fair to readers to subject them to such an arbitrary and capricious standard for the presentation of the one fact they may have looked at the article for in the first place. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I tried making a collapsed infobox - all that shows are two lines: "Joseph Priestley House / National Historic Landmark" wikilinked to National Historic Landmark. It is just barely wider than the 300 px photos (has to be this wide to display properly). The only parameter it is missing are the coordinates, which are shown just above it anyway. What do you think of it? Awadewit, this might also be a solution for other articles where there is disagreement on whether or not to include an infobox? Ruhrfisch><>°°02:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I was all prepared to compromise on this. However, when I took a look at it, I was a bit concerned. On my screen, when the infobox is open, I can't read half of the lead or see the map. I think that it distorts the layout of the lead a bit too much. I really just don't think that the box is necessary. The most important facts about the house are in the lead. I don't think that there is a necessity to repeat them in a box. Surely people can read a few paragraphs. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia after all, not a listing of facts like an almanac or something. Awadewit | talk05:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I am going to copy the relevant parts of this conversation from your, Daniel Case's and my talk pages to the Priestley House talk page. I will reply there when I am done copying. Ruhrfisch><>°°13:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, my goodness. I'm glad Raul likes to space out TFAs so much; I want it to be a long, long, long time until my next one. Thanks so much for helping out! (Now back to work with yeh!) María(habla conmigo) 00:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
And it's the day after Reagan appears on the mainpage. It's good to know that balance and fairness are being upheld... María(habla conmigo) 13:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
While I would love to help out, I'm afraid that I am going to have start cutting back on my peer reviews. I'm so sorry! Awadewit | talk22:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Copyedit help
A user has asked for help in copyediting a sports related article. Since I know you are not all that familiar with sports, I thought you could bring a fresh perspective on the article. You were invaluable in getting History of American football to FA status (it was TFA on Sunday!!!) so I thought perhaps you could help out with 2007 ACC Championship Game and it is a current FAC nomination (see [1]). Again, I know you are busy, but the article, while comprehensive, could use your fine copyeditor's touch on it, and your LACK of familiarity with the subject is actually a benefit in this case, as it was with the History of American football article. Thanks in advance for at least considering helping out! --Jayron32.talk.contribs01:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to help, but I'm afraid that I don't have time right now (see new banner). I'm made a resolution to edit less and write my dissertation more. Awadewit | talk17:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: your recent nom, can you please add all the content including the previous crown stuff, so we can see the total count? Cirt (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much, ma'am, for your nomination and support in my RfA which I really appreciate. It closed at 83/0/0. I was surprised by the unanimity and will do my best to live up to the new role. All the best, --ROGER DAVIEStalk16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The patio at the Partal Palace in the Alhambra, Andalucia.
Many thanks for volunteering to join the FA-Team. We now have a first mission, to help the Murder, Madness and Mayhem WikiProject improve twelve articles towards featured article status. These articles are really interesting, and the person in charge of WP:MMM is enthusiastic about our support, so this mission should be a real pleasure. Please watchlist the mission page and the WikiProject page as well as some (or all) of the twelve articles. The students contributing to these articles are all new to Wikipedia, so please be ultra-friendly towards them.
The coordinator for this mission is Wrad (talk), who may suggest further ways in which you can help. I will provide back-up. In particular, it might be useful for you to indicate which of the twelve articles interest you most (or which ones you are watchlisting) on the mission page.
Thanks again for joining in. I think this will be a lot of fun for all of us, and hopefully we can make it fun for the student too and create a few more featured articles between now and April. Geometry guy21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.
I have to run off now, but I'll be thinking of you and wishing you a resolute arm for vandal-whacking; I'll try to help out tomorrow as I can. It was really nice to remind myself how neat and satisfying that article is. :) Willow (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for replying to my peer review request, and for doing it in such a finalized, in-depth form. Your comments are especially helpful and constructive, and I'll keep them on my private to-do list. (P.S.: No, I haven't played that étude...though I have played the Op. 10 no. 1, which is a little similar in structure. :D --~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical?04:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
