User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 71

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

Leyland

I don't know if you plan to comment at the FAC on Leyland, but if there is any chance you could give it a source review, I'd be very grateful. No problem if you are too busy. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Didn't know it was at FAC! Will do it at once. Brianboulton (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: An image issue

Fixed. If someone complains that it should be even smaller, please let me know. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Benjamin Britten

This is a note to let the main editors of Benjamin Britten know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 22, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 22, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Benjamin Britten, 1968

Benjamin Britten (1913–76) was an English composer, conductor and pianist, and a central figure in 20th-century British classical music. His wide compositional range includes opera, orchestral, choral, solo vocal, chamber, instrumental and film music. He showed talent from an early age, and first came to public attention with the choral work A Boy Was Born in 1934. His best-known works include the operas Peter Grimes (1945) and Billy Budd (1951), the War Requiem (1962) and the orchestral showpiece The Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra (1945). Recurring themes in his operas are the struggle of an outsider against a hostile society, and the corruption of innocence. He wrote copiously for children and amateur performers, including the opera Noye's Fludde, a Missa Brevis, and the song collection Friday Afternoons. Britten often composed with particular performers in mind, most importantly his personal and professional partner, the tenor Peter Pears, with whom he co-founded the annual Aldeburgh Festival in 1948; the pair were responsible for the creation of its Snape Maltings concert hall in 1967. In 1976 Britten became the first composer to be awarded a life peerage. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stella Gibbons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Lady (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Kinky Boots (musical)

Would you kindly comment on this Peer review? You might check the article's talk page re: the recent failed GA. Thanks for any help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll add it to my list - might be a couple of days. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your excellent comments. We are working through them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

Thank you: Samuel Merrill Woodbridge now an FA

I just wanted to express my appreciation and thank you for your time and efforts in helping me get Samuel Merrill Woodbridge to featured article status with your insightful comments and focused critique.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure, and congratulations. I prefer where possible to do dtailed reviews before the FAC stage, so should you want something looked at, give me a ping and I'll add it to my list. Brianboulton (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I have a few articles on my user page for which I'm awaiting GA reviews, with plans afterwards to bring them up to FA so if you could take a look at those when you have some spare time I would be grateful.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Scott image

The old file, File:Observation Hill - Antarctica.jpg, was removed from the article on 18 Nov 2012 diff, after it was deleted on Commons as part of a large batch of files which were not clearly free - see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:US Antarctic Program photo library images. I added the current image, File:Cross on Observation Hill, McMurdo Station.jpg, on 23 Jul 2013 diff. I looked at the version on Flickr and it seems to me that while they are both images taken from the same photograph, the Wikipedia image is sufficiently different (different crop, slightly better scan of the original) that the uploader almost had to have access to the original photo in both cases and so is almost certainly the photographer.

Be that as it may, there are two other images of the cross available on Commons. Here is a gallery of the choices:

  • Photo currently in the Scott article, on en (could be transferred to Commons)
    Photo currently in the Scott article, on en (could be transferred to Commons)
  • Closer to cross, but harder to see cross bar with dark background, on Commons
    Closer to cross, but harder to see cross bar with dark background, on Commons
  • Different perspective, but figure is distracting, on Commons
    Different perspective, but figure is distracting, on Commons

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't checked who added the image – had I known it was you, I would not have queried it! Of the three, your choice is clearly the best, so no more need be said. Sorry to have bothered you. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
No worries - when I added the current image, neither of the others was on Commons, so I am glad for a chance to look at the options and decide what works best in the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Tippett

Congrats to another good FA! (A review was on my unwritten to-do-list.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It got pretty thorough review treatment at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
It did, didn't it?! Well done from me too. WP:TFARP (inelegant shortcut name, I know) is open for business for 2014 if you have any potentials TFAs you'd like to list. Regards, BencherliteTalk 11:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I was bold and thought of Tippett for his 110th birthday in 2015, an extra point ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
2015 is a bit too remote for me (will TFA still be running then – who knows?). I have some 2014 dates marked down, though nothing before June. There are some early FAs from my polar period, c. 2008–09, which I fear would have to be significantly rewritten to meet today's standards, before they could be TFA-worthy. But I've had more than my share of TFAs recently (15 this year) so I may well lie low for a while. Brianboulton (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding PR reviews to Wikicup

Hi Brian, currently the Wikicup is discussing possibly awarding points for PR reviews. As the editor most involved with the PR process, I thought you might want to weigh in. You can find the discussion here. Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 17:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Michael Tippett

Brian, curious ... why are the second and third sentences in "Later life" uncited? [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks as though they were cited in an earlier version e.g. here, then the last sentence of that particular paragraph got moved, taking the references with it - trust eagle-eyed SG to spot that! I don't have the sources so can't say whether those couple of sentences are supported by both Grove and by Robinson 96-98, or just one of them, so I'll leave BB to add the magic numbers. BencherliteTalk 20:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The story, a tangled tale, is as follows: Originally the paragraph, as it appears in Bencher's link above, was in the "Legacy" section, as a sort of brief summary of Tippett's private life. During the FAC, on the advice of a reviewer, the paragraph was moved to "Later life" (although it wasn't really relevant to Tippett's "later life"). Then User:John noticed that the last sentence, concerning Bowen, repeated information already in the article, and removed it – unfortunately together with the references that supported other details in the paragraph. I am mortified that neither I nor any other FAC reviewer notice the apparently uncited sentence, but the responsibility is mine and I hang my head in shame. In reparation I have done two things: first, I've restored the references (actually exchanging one of them for a better). Secondly, I've moved the content to what I think is a more appropriate place, the "Personal crisis" section. I think all is well now, and thank you, Sandy for spotting this. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a big deal, and not even "eagle eyes" ... I was looking at the article only because I have a friend with the same name :) Thanks for fixing! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the new FA, Brian. I no longer have to feel guilty about our coverage of MT. Tony (talk) 11:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stella Gibbons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Bayley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stella Gibbons may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • , a small settlement in the middle of the Heath, with literary connections to [[John Keats|Keats]] (whom Gibbons revered,<ref name= Trussxii/> [[Leigh Hunt]] and [[D.H. Lawrence]].<ref>Oliver, p. 47</

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Bottie-boy! (nice to see you're still on the case) Brianboulton (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI re: Stanley Marcus

To the contrary of the supposition, I in no way lost interest in the article or its nomination. I simply had no idea anyone had gotten around to it. I saw no changes to the Talk page of the article whenever I viewed it (perhaps the nesting function caused them to be collapsed where I couldn't see them?) nor any indication on my own user talk page. I'm not saying that anyone said either of those things would happen, and I recognize I may have overlooked some instruction that specifically indicated they would not happen, but simply wanted to clarify that I've been quite interested all along, just unaware the process had begun, much less concluded. Thanks for all the feedback. It was hard seeing such a long list of problems, especially as some are quite complex, but at least they are stated clearly, seem reasonable, and give a definite direction. Lawikitejana (talk) 08:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by. I am sorry if I misunderstood your intentions, but I'm a little puzzled by you saying you were "unaware the [FAC] process had begun", since you yourself began the process by nominating the article on 27 September. I left my comments the following day. With the lack of any response to my comments after a week, or any sign of activity on the article itself, I assumed that you had lost interest, since usually nominators watch their FAC pages closely, and reply to (or at least acknowledge) comments fairly quickly. The gist of my comments was that the article was unprepared for the FAC, since it has had very little detailed attention for some while. It needs some significant work before being brought back to FAC, and I would strongly recommend that you put it through the peer review process before doing so. You are welcome to contact me when you think the article is ready for peer review, and I will look at it again. Brianboulton (talk) 10:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

Chaplin PR

Hi Brian, just to let you know that I have now opened the PR for Charlie Chaplin - if your very kind offer to review the article still stands, TrueHeartSusie and I would be delighted to have your comments. The page is here, and obviously you could start the review whenever you're free and can take as long as you like (I know that it's a very long article!) Cheers, hope you are well, --Loeba (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll be pleased to do this, and will begin in the next couple of days. In view of the length, I'll tackle it in instalments. Looking forward to it. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
That's great, thanks. If you're able to do any copy editing as you read through that would also be great, but it's up to you of course :) --Loeba (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Another request

Hi Brian, I would really appreciate your typicaly euride insight here. You were helpful and constructive at the frst PR. Ceoil (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll get to it when I can, though it may be a few days – a lot in progress at present. Brianboulton (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

I am going through your insightful comments regarding Trees (poem), and will begin going through them in the next few days. If you have a little time in the next week or so, I'm planning to put Kirkpatrick Chapel up for FAC in the near future and was hoping you could work a little magic in how I can polish that article as well.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stella Gibbons, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mary Beard and John Carey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Osbert Lancaster

I have half a shelf of Osbert Lancaster books, and would sign up without hesitation to an FAC campaign on him. Please add me to the useful idiots annex of your to-do list. Tim riley (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I have very little Lancaster material at the moment, but I would enjoy the research. My present to-do list is Stella Gibbons → Nancy Mitford → Imogen Holst, though I'd happily postpone Imogen. Can we consider it a prospective joint project for early-ish 2014 – depending, of course, on your own timetable of work? Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Yours to command. We pensioners are very biddable timewise. I'll begin a gentle, desultory assembling of stuff in advance of serious work on Osbert. Be careful in your next project lest you catch Mitford's Disease, viz a total failure of the ability to punctuate. After that I'm at your service if you feel the need for assistance with poor Imogen. Tim riley (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

BBb

Happy birthday to Benjamin Britten, and thanks to you, BB, and all who support his article, now on the Main page. As an extra gift, DYK is late today, so one Te Deum stays longer before the more festive one appears ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful work on Britten. Congratulations. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I need hardly add my thanks for and admiration of your share of the writing, and for your alacrity in coming to my rescue. But I do, in spades. I shall follow the wise counsel you gave me ages ago about leaving a TFA severely alone while it's actually on the front page, returning a day or so later to clear up once the smutty schoolboys and wild-eyed fanatics have turned their attentions to later TFAs. – Tim riley (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but let it be known that yours was always 80% of the work on BB. On TFA I agree, let the children play awhile – it keeps the blood pressure down. Thanks, too, for your helpful burrowing on SG; I have left a punctuation query on the PR in the hope of your attention. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Kinky Boots (musical) again

Hello, BB. I think that we have now addressed nearly all of your comments at the PR (let us know if you have any others based on the changes), but I would still be grateful if you could comment on the question of whether the table in the Awards section should be moved to its own article like was done for [List of awards and nominations for the musical South Pacific|South Pacific] and [List of awards and nominations for the musical Wicked|Wicked], among others, or whether it should stay in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For your dedicated efforts reviewing and copyediting the Charlie Chaplin article. Thanks and thanks again. Loeba (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

Britten: mopping up after TFA

Very little to review, thanks to the vigilance of splendid Wiki-colleagues, but we have a handful of points that should be looked at, I think: here. No rush. Tim riley (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference question

I've been hammering away at the D'Oliveira affair for a while now, and although it is not quite ready for PR (I'm heading to GA first) I wanted a little referencing advice. Two of the sources are kindle books (and I've no intention of coughing up for a print version just for using here!) and have no page numbers. I've given the kindle "location" as a reference so far. Is that enough, do you think, or would more be needed at FA? Any advice appreciated. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the location stands as a kindle "page number", provided it is standard to all versions. If I were you I would add the chapter number, as an additional locator. Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added chapter title/number for any references. Hopefully that will be fine at FAC (eventually). Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Nellie Romilly

Dates were born 1888 died 1955 according to chart in Mary Soames book.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brianboulton/Archive_71&oldid=1168300024"