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.
I hope the family concerns won't be too serious and will let you enjoy summer time.
I am very close to finish the translation of your Sarah Trimmer's article in French. I just need your help concerning what you name "public letters". Is it equivalent to an open letter or is it different ?
This is so exciting! Thanks, again, for your splendid work on these translations! "Public letters" is more of a metaphor - it means "the intellectual world of print". It is akin to the Republic of Letters. Awadewit (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I see that you have reverted my edit of Joseph Priestley. The whole discussion you referred me too has concluded to a right handed picture and I challenge you to prove me otherwise. Anyway, I fail to see why anybobody would insist on this minor and ridiculous image placement issue and would insist not having an Infobox, as is the norm in the rest of Wikipedia. I don't really care about the placement and the contributors to this article can continue ad nauseam to discuss the finer points of this dramatic issue. That goes well with an article about a theological debater, like "how many angels on a pin head".
Given Awadewit's family concerns, I was bold and replied on Pierre cb's talk page. A - hope all is well and let me know if I can be of help in any way, Ruhrfisch><>°°18:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear Awadeit,
I am a highschool student from Canada and I am doing an assignment on the authority, accuracy, and currency of this Wikipedia page. I have a few questions to ask you about the secondary sources you used. IF you can reply to this post, that would be greatly appreciated.
DYK for The Queen of Hearts (poem)
On August 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Queen of Hearts (poem), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
That's a wonderful memory! I have to say, I associate "mince" with the 19th century - Dickens and mince pies. :) Awadewit (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Penitents Compete
On August 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Penitents Compete, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Since you were around for the FAC process, I thought you might find this amusing: When I saw these edits, I pictured Margaret Tyzack herself, editing Wikipedia anonymously, faded movie posters on the wall, muttering as she switched the names around: "Dammit, I was the star of that movie! Helen Mirren can kiss my butt!" Chuckle. Scartol • Tok21:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I am out of the U.S., Google books is not working for me (at least it is not giving me any previews) and I don't know what to do about it. Can you add something quickly about the Industrial revolution? I am sorry, I totally ran out of time and internet access before I left.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
After noticing that the proposed article is in the scope of WP:MILHIST, I left a note on our coordinator's talk page, but you might want to drop a note on our main project talk page as well. -MBK00421:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Argh! I added it to the article. If the state legislature can ever pass a budget, who knows what will happen. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, I will keep an eye on this, and update as needed. Ruhrfisch><>°°04:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I've renominated the Unification of Germany article. It seemed a shame that all your work and that of the other readers would be lost, so will notify those who did take the time to read it. I've made some substantive changes to the text on Bismarck, and have asked a few of the German project reviewers to take a particular look at that. I think we're reasonably good on it. I'd appreciate your support. Hope your family issues are resolving themselves satisfactorily. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't have time to reread the article right now (see message at top of user talk), but I see the FAC is going well - way to go! Awadewit (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I now have a little flash drive full of complete 1600dpi scans of all the art in the Memoir, and the title page. I'll try to get them ready so you have something nice to come back to. Shoemaker's HolidayOver 195 FCs served15:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey there Awadewit. I was wondering if you might take a look at Talk:Nikita_Zotov#Possible_sources – specifically, this source. I was wondering, based of Materialscientist's comment on the talk page, if it would pass WP:RS standards. I do know you're very busy, so feel free to sidetrack this until you get some time on your hands (or perhaps one of the talk page watchers could jump in ;)). Regards, NW(Talk)00:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I as delayed in undertaking this GA review, but have now completed it. I hope all is well with you, and I will keep an eye on the page from time to time. Ling me if you have any queries. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
It was long, but I thought it went well. Listen to it while doing laundry or dishes. :) (Now you know how long I wait to do laundry.) Awadewit (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Georgian society
Hello !
I am currently working on an article devoted to the world of Jane Austen's novels, as I believe it to be a worthwhile insight into the background of her novels. Any suggested reading (dedicated to this approach) beyond Deirdre Le Faye's eponymous book ? May I add that your various articles on Mary Wollstonecraft provide very interesting reading ? My best regards. Azurfrog (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment! The article you are working on looks wonderful - we should find someone to translate it into English! I don't have time at the moment to put together a list of books, but if you can wait a week or two, I will have more time then. Awadewit (talk) 01:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Arnold, Dana, et. al. The Georgian Country House: Architecture, Landscape and Society. Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 1998.
Ashelford, Jane. The Art of Dress. London: National Trust, 1996.
Batey, Mavis. Jane Austen and the English Landscape. London: Barn Elsm, 1996.
Buck, Anne. Dress in Eighteenth-Century England. London: Batsford, 1979.
Byrde, Penelope. Jane Austen Fashion. Ludlow: Excellent Press, 1999.
Copeland, Edward and Juliet McMaster, eds. The Cambridge Companion to Jane Austen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Copley, Stephen and Peter Garside. The Politics of the Picturesque: Literature, Landscape and Aesthetics since 1720. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Davis, Dorothy. A History of Shopping. London; Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966.
Feather, J. A History of British Publishing. London: Croom Helm, 1988.
Giffin, Michael. Jane Austen and Religion: Salvation and Society in Georgian England. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.
Grey, J. David. The Jane Austen Companion. New York: Macmillan, 1986.
Hart, Roger. English Life in the Eighteenth Century. London: Wayland, 1970.
Hughes, Penelope. The Immortal Dinner. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2001.
Neale, R.S. Bath 1680-1850: A Social History, or A Valley of Pleasure, yet a Sink of Iniquity. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981.
Martin, Christopher. A Short History of English Schools 1750-1965. Hove: Wayland, 1979.
Michaelson, Patricia Howell. Speaking Volumes: Women, Reading, and Speech in the Age of Austen. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002.
Mooneyham, Laura G. Romance, Language and Education in Jane Austen's Novels. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1988.
Neill, Edmund. The Politics of Jane Austen. London: Macmillan, 1999.
Nicolson, Nigel. The World of Jane Austen. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1991.
Piggott, Patrick. The Innocent Diversion, Music in the Life and Writings of Jane Austen. London: Douglas Cleverdon, 1979.
Porter, Roy and Marie Mulvey Roberts, eds. Pleasure in the Eighteenth Century. London: Macmillan, 1996.
Rudé, George. Hanoverian London 1714-1808'. London: Secker and Warburg, 1971.
St Clair, William. The Reading Nation in the Romantic Period. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Sales, Roger. Jane Austen and Representations of Regency England. London: Routledge, 1994.
Selwyn, David. Jane Austen and Leisure. London: Hambledon Press, 1999.
Thompson, F. M. L. English Landed Society in the Nineteenth Century. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963.
Todd, Janet, ed. Jane Austen in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Trumbach, Randolph. The Rise of the Egalitarian Family: Aristocratic Kinship and Domestic Relations in Eighteenth-Century England. London: Academic Press, 1978.
Raveloft
Hello! Ravenloft (module) has been nominated for FAC again. As you commented in one or both of the previous FAC discussions, I'm inviting you to have another look. Thanks! BOZ (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Since I know you have just oodles of free time — and because you're surely not annoyed at how I skipped out on the WikiVoices podcast you went out of your way to invite me to — perhaps you'd like to have a look at Z. Marcas? I haven't done up a proper peer review process, since I'm not sure if it's worth taking to FAC or not. (Obviously I'll want your opinion on that.) Hope this finds you well, and I look forward to listening to the discussion! Scartol • Tok01:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course, I would love to read it! However, my dad goes in for surgery in two days. Could I read it in a week or two? Life should be a bit calmer then. Awadewit (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course, please take all the time you need. Dad — that's what I meant to say in my email. Your dad. I hope everything goes well. Best wishes, natch. Scartol • Tok02:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The translation of you work "Sarah Trimmer" is proposed as a featured article on the French WP.
I got some questions from a user there, maybe you can help me.
He is surprised the article doesn't mention links between Trimmer and Edmund Burke, as well as links with Jane West. Do you have any comment about that ?
The article mentions the links between Trimmer's and Burke's ideas in general. Burke represented a specific kind of conservatism that Trimmer largely supported. I'm not sure if the scholarship on Trimmer makes this connection explicit and I am away from my sources at the time, so I cannot check that. The connection to West is obvious as well, but I don't remember it being mentioned anywhere in the scholarship. If it is, it is not a main idea. Awadewit (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The question was about the "debt" Sarah Trimmer may have had as regards John Newbery's approach to children's litterature in general. The reference to Tom Telescope is certainly not really relevant, as Newbery's approach there aimed at being scientific (so not quite Sarah Timmer's cup of tea, I believe). --Azurfrog (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I haven't read anything that makes a Trimmer-Newbery connection, as far as I remember. Of course, Newbery helped initiate a viable children's literature market in England, but what he published was quite different than Trimmer. Awadewit (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I hesitate asking, since it's still August, but would you mind looking at the images on this article? It's currently in GAC, and its reviewer wants a review of the images. You are the go-to gal for this kind of thing, ya know. ;) I've already made sure that each image has a fair use rationale, and I'm gonna work on the captions next. Thanks for your help, as always. I will probably contact you again for a peer review once it passes GA. Good luck with everything else. --Christine (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not doing any reviewing right now, as my dad just had open heart surgery. It seems like you need a review right away - apologies I can't help! Awadewit (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
No problems. I hope your dad recovers quickly. My dad had a triple bypass a couple of years ago, and he's healthier now than he's been for years. He quit a 50-year old smoking habit, cut down on the drinking, even lost some weight. Don't worry yourself about it; in the large scheme of things, as I'm sure you know, an image review pales. --Christine (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I cannot participate in an ongoing thread as my father just had open heart surgery and I am only checking wiki occasionally. I will read it in a few days, however. Awadewit (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Image editing policies
When the suggestion of flipping the Priestley portrait arose the last time or two, I thought Wikipedia had a guideline against alteration of images, at least without disclosure and a good reason for the alteration. The policy question has arisen elsewhere, but I can't find the policy. Was I dreaming? —Finell(Talk)05:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Since A has much more important things on her mind right now, I will be BOLD and try to answer. The sixth bullet point of MOS:IMAGES is as follows:
It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left (for example: Timpani). However, images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences. An image should be reversed or substantially altered only if this clearly assists the reader (for example, cropping a work of art to focus on a detail discussed in the text). Any such alteration must be noted in the caption.
I heartily concur. Hope that your dad gets a lot of rest and your troubles lessen considerably. Because you know...I have articles for you to review. No, really. I am heartless and selfish. Here's something pointless to cheer you up: [2]. And something much funnier, yet not as nice-hearted: [3]. --Moni3 (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I see you have him down as a project. I'm interested in the sources cited for The White Goddess, and Graves mentions a Thomas Boreman as a mythographer of the 17th century (in relation to something in Pliny). I would say that this is the same person, more likely than not, since the book has many slips in scholarship. Do you have any light to cast on this? Charles Matthews (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The Thomas Boreman I know was an 18th-century British publisher. Here is the tiny stub I haven't bothered to put up yet.
Thomas Boreman was an 18th-century British publisher. Along with John Newbery and Mary Cooper, he helped establish children's books a viable business. His natural histories, such as A Description of Three Hundred Animals (1730) and A Description of a Great Variety of Animals and Vegetables were popular and greatly influenced later children's books. He also published the earliest known guide books for children, such as The Gigantick History of the Two Famous Giants, and Other Curiosities in Guildhall (1740). Children's literature Mary Jackson describes Boreman's books as "rather prosaic accounts of scenes".[1] However, she acknowledges that he attempted to "leaven instruction with amusement", following the educational theories of John Locke.[2]
References: Jackson, Mary V. Engines of Instruction, Mischief, and Magic: Children's Literature in England from Its Beginnings to 1839. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989. ISBN0803275706.
Having worked over more of Graves's discussions, I think no, it is the same person he meant, just not accurately described. (The White Goddess, for all its iconic status, seems to be riddled with problems for the scholar.) Thanks for replying. I believe Boreman's books made up a series of 11, of which some were concerned with giant tales and so on. In the context I think Graves was citing what Boreman wrote about the narwhal, in a style mid-way between a bestiary and a zoology book. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Here is the ONDB entry on him. I can email it to either or both of you on Monday, (Won't have reliable internet until then) if you drop me an email asking for it. It's got a bit more than the stub above, which might be helpful. Ealdgyth - Talk13:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
That is a good article to use as a source. Most histories of children's literature, particularly books on 18th-century children's literature, mention Boreman in passing, so those books would be good to use as well. If you want a list, let me know. Awadewit (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a typical issue you get with using over-specialized sources. He might have been an MP, famous prize-fight organizer & invented a religion, but Ms Jackson's subject is only children's literature, so (very reasonably) that is all she covers. Johnbod (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I have a question
I was not sure what venue to put forth this question, but then by chance I listened to the recording you all made about reviewing Featured Article Candidates and so I thought I would put it to you. I've been doing some tinkering to Byzantine Empire, trying to mostly clean up its messy image layout and convert the citations to a consistent format (Harv, I guess, since no one has thus far responded on the talk page.) Anyhow I noticed that there are a fair number of citations to Encyclopedia Britannica, and I was wondering if that would be allowed under reliable source criteria (as I recall in the podcast you mentioned something about those not being high quality.) Could you help me or point me to a better venue? Sorry to bother you. Martin Raybourne (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
It is not that Britannica is unreliable, it is just that for featured articles, an general encyclopedia like that is not usually a high-quality source (WP:FA?). Britannica is certainly a WP:RS since it is published by a reputable press and fact-checked, etc. However, there are many better sources. So, for example, rather than using the article on "Byzantine Empire", try to find books about the empire instead. Britannica itself can be useful for this, actually. For example, there is "Additional reading" section in the "Byzantine Empire" article - try reading some of those books. It gives an extensive list for each period of the empire, I see. Awadewit (talk) 04:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Hope all is well. This makes me sad ... so many hours and so much frustration. I hope it is truly for the better. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Introduction to evolution/archive1 -I for one need to steer clear. On a more positive note - I've unleashed a new batch of students on the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2009. I think it has improved some in that there are fewer topics (only five). There is also no formal pairing of mentor / mentees, thinking perhaps it would be more inviting to those who simply drop in to assistance as time permits. If you happen to stumble across my little ones; feel free to share the Wiki-love! --JimmyButler (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I would imagine it is like the Jane Austen page - people come by asking why their favorite film/book isn't in the article. Have you read Twilight? I keep holding off... Awadewit (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Could you say what you're doing here, please? You've turned one pull quote into a blockquote in a way that looks very odd. The ones that were cquotes are now blockquotes, and on my browser indistinguishable from the text, which is why I had them as cquotes. SlimVirgintalk|contribs01:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
No problem - all of the blockquotes are actually distinguishable from the surrounding text - they are in a slightly smaller font. I'm not sure which pull quote I turned into a blockquote - I tried to read very carefully and only change the quotes that were part of the text of the article. Which one looks odd? The reason I changed them is because the WP:MOSQUOTE guideline states: "A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins. Block quotations are not enclosed in quotation marks (especially including decorative ones such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template, used only for pull quotes)." Awadewit (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The anon describing what happened to some of the women in the section called Women — that was a pull quote, and is now a blockquote.
I didn't follow the MoS on this point (and it's a guideline, so we're allowed to ignore it). I'm happy to remove the cquotes if there's a good reason, but as it stands, I can't see a difference with my browser between blockquotes and the rest of the text. Or rather, if I know they're there, I can see a very slight distinction, but if I'm not looking for them, they just blend into the rest of the text. I'd prefer to have more of a contrast to avoid the wall-of-text effect, which is what the decorative quotation marks offer. SlimVirgintalk|contribs01:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I happen to think it is more difficult to read the text with the pull-quotes there (they are a distraction to me), but to each his own. Be aware that many people at FAC believe the MOS to be a policy and not a guideline, so more people may come along and change things like this. :) I'm reviewing the article now, btw - very enjoyable. Awadewit (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The thing I always want to avoid is a wall of text, especially with something of this length. I print articles out when I'm writing them, and anything with too much black, I break up with pull quotes, images, decorative quotation marks, you name it. That's why I'm afraid I have to ignore the MoS on that point. :)
Blockquotes used to look quite different to me, but since I got this computer (I used to use a Mac, but this is Windows), they look more or less the same as the background, so I've kind of gone off them. SlimVirgintalk|contribs01:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
A comment you made on the FAC episode of Wikivoices made me chuckle. You were discussing the length of articles, and that you'd like to imagine a reader actually finishing the article; therefore you admired tightness. It's funny, because that's a major reason I like reviewing South Park episode articles. They're short, and they don't make me feel overfull, or that I've bitten off more than I'd like to chew. I've got Jackie Robinson up for review now (not sure of its KB, but its big), and I imagine that maybe 1 in a 1000 readers actually reads all of it. Thank goodness for leads and TOCs, I guess. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't uncollapse those sections, as I'm finding it difficult to follow the page. I understand that your image issues are dealt with, and that the others remain. SlimVirgintalk|contribs00:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Please don't alter other people's posts - I need to be able to see all of my concerns. Collapsing my "oppose" also makes it looks like it isn't there. Also, there is one image question you did not answer. Awadewit (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping that you could review my latest edit to Muhammad al-Durrah and possibly help with the phrasing discussions and copy-edits for bringing this article forward. Its a bitof a controversial topic but at least the discussion page is civil and there doesn't seem to be a desire to editwar by non of the participants :) Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk00:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi there,
I found you on the WikiProject Children's Literature participants list, and I was wondering if I could get your quick opinion? I -know- that I'm being silly about this, and I don't want to get into an edit war, so I really just wanted an outside perspective to give me a (gentle) slap into reality and tell me it's really not a big deal. In the article Life As We Knew It an IP user, User:69.116.98.119, made some edits which appear to be meant to be helpful ones. The one thing that I removed was in a list of items the characters were stockpiling: "Together they go in search of stores where they buy canned vegetables, soup, juice, milk, pet supplies (for Horton, their cat), lamps, candles, fruits, batteries, toilet paper, matches, soap, etc. while fighting off other people who are doing the same thing." This user keeps adding "Tampax" to the list. The list isn't exhaustive, as they stockpiled many other goods, and for some reason adding Tampax just seems out of place to me. Little words like changing a sentence from "...which is still open" to "...which is still actually open". They're minor edits but I feel like they take away from the article. At the same time, I don't know that I have any real justification to change them. If you don't have an answer for me that's fine, I just thought that I'd get a healthy reality check before I start making vanity-edits. *Awaits reality check* DreamHaze (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Little tweaks to prose can make a big difference to the readability of an article - you should go with your writing instincts. Try also including "see talk page" in the edit summary and explain what you just told me on the talk page - try to engage the editor in a dialogue. Might I also make a small suggestion? The current plot summary is a large block of text - could you create some paragraphs? It would make reading it easier! :) Awadewit (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the copy-edits Awadewit. I am getting mildly concerned in case it drops off the bottom of the page! Looie says he has a lot more to say but hasn't said it yet. He also says the prose is a bit "puffy". Are there any obvious examples you see that I could change? Fainitesbarleyscribs07:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I haven't finished copyediting the page. The prose is a bit "puffy", but I'm reluctant to fix it, as I know nothing about the topic. I'll leave some examples on the talk page tonight. Awadewit (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Source_in_Oscar_Wilde - You and I are not friends, so you can definitely be neutral. I need someone who will be willing to actually look at the page objectively. The claim by a small group of people is that a source, written by Maynard is 1. authoritative on Oscar Wilde and 2. can make the claim that Wilde is a pederast which is not a controversial claim. The evidence is that Maynard has publications on another poet and that he uses sources to verify his claim (according to others on the board, whereas, of course, I believe it is a highly controversial claim based on sources available). The passage in Maynard is "We know that Wilde engaged in sexual acts with males, loved obsessively at least one male, cultivated a style of male intimacy and of Aesthetic transgression, thought of himself as in a tradition fostered by Greek pederastic love, expressed guilt for his same-sex acts/desires." Removed here. This is the original source.
I would ask for you to identify if 1. that source uses sources on Wilde, 2. it is a source that is mainstream and expert on Wilde, and 3. it puts forth a mainstream view according to evidence within the source. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I am a highschool student from Canada doing a report on the authroity, accuracy and currency of this page. I have a few question to ask you, so if you can please respond to this post.
I hope you don't mind that I have put your post at the bottom of this page (it is traditional to post at the bottom of talk pages). What would you like to know? Awadewit (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Peer Review as to whether you feel your original comments have been dealt with, if you see any new issues with the article, and whether or not you believe the article will meet the criteria for Featured Article status. Any new comments you have would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to toss my congrats in here as well! I'm embarrassed to say it, but I didn't realize it was at the FAC stage! Otherwise I would have contributed to those discussions. Sorry about that, but I see you didn't need my support anyway. Very nice work! — HunterKahn(c)17:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, I was very impressed to see a video in the article. I know exactly squat about video files on Wikipedia. Might this be something we should add to the other season 1 articles? — HunterKahn(c)17:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I suspect this one got a lot of attention because so many reviewers were very, very curious to see what Awadewit would do with a pop culture article. The project is doing a great job with these articles (and Awadewit did a great job with this one). Karanacs (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to alert you to what User:Seferin is doing on this page, which is within the scope of the literature project and would probably be among the first major critical theory articles to be significantly improved. Wrad (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to hear of your problems. I will leave further comments on The Historian until you're better able to deal with them. Get well quickly. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your (long) bibliography on this subject. I haven't answered sooner as I have been travelling to some faraway places. I'll now be looking for copies of these books, which don't appear so very easy to find over here.
I intend to nominate this article for GA status this month, but there still is a lot of work to do.
I take this opportunity to send you all my best wishes for your speedy recovery.
Do you know any Wikipedians in England? I'm sure the books are easily available there. :) I would send them to you, if I could, but I am in the US and it would be a tad expensive! Awadewit (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry: I'll start with W H Smith here in Paris (now the largest English bookshop in France, I believe), where a lot of English litterature is available, and then I'll proceeed with the bigger public libraries (inexpensive, but generally effective, though a bit less with English books, I must admit). --Azurfrog (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Operation Pleshet
Hi Awadewit! Remember reading and making fixes to the article Operation Pleshet? The article is probably as close to completion now as it will ever be, and I don't think there are any more sources I missed which discuss the events and would have anything noteworthy to add to the article. Can you please have another look at it and say if you believe any further work is needed? Thanks, Ynhockey(Talk)21:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Not your area of interest, but when FAC-related, certainly your area of on-wiki expertise. I've been working on Gray's Inn for a while now, and it's currently undergoing Peer Review (which you're welcome to comment on). Do you think that in referencing terms it's FAC-able? I appreciate there's rather a gap in the 20th-21st century that I'm working to fill, but other than that? Thanks in advance, Ironholds (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll have to look at it when I'm a bit more cognizant - it won't be for a couple of weeks. If you are going to nominate soon, you might want to ask someone else, such as User:Qp10qp. Awadewit (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
He seems somewhat out of it; mind adding it on to the end of your (I'm sure massive) list of things to do? I seem to see you at every high-quality article discussion, so I appreciate it's hardly your only priority. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I saw somewhere in my FAC reading today that you were under the weather, and hope you are doing better! My sense from reading FAC today is that your maintenance of the Urgents template is helping, and I was so relieved not to have to constantly stop because of image reviews lacking ... I didn't have to stop once! Thanks so much for helping out with those tasks. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey I notice that you've been trying to drum up more FAC reviews on the talk page. I don't know if you'd be up for it but I've nominated Intimacy a while back for the second time. Everything there is to fix has been pretty much fixed, but I'm left with only one weak and one full support. It's quite a short article and not much to tweak so I'm wondering if you'd like to have look and review. Shouldn't take long. RB88 (T) 18:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
For Awadewit, who volunteered for the thankless task of helping FAC reviewers identify priority articles. Your efforts have helped ensure that some articles are promoted sooner rather than later. Karanacs (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for helping reduce the workload for Sandy and me!! Although, seriously, you should take a few weeks off and pamper yourself - back problems should never be taken lightly. Karanacs (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
