User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

→

Mu Cephei

Can you explain why the final phrase is necessary in: "A very luminous red supergiant, Mu Cephei is one of the largest stars visible to the naked eye, and in the entire galaxy."

I find the phrase "and in the entire galaxy" jarring, unnecessary, and grandiose. If I was writing that from scratch, and I felt it was necessary, I'd say "one of the largest stars known" rather than "entire galaxy" which feels unencyclopedic to me. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, do change it to 'known', no problem. Rothorpe (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I kind of like "one of the largest stars visible to the naked eye". I wouldn't change that. But perhaps there is a reason to keep the final phrase. How about this:

A very luminous red supergiant, Mu Cephei is one of the largest stars visible to the naked eye, and indeed in the entire galaxy"?

If both are true, then to delete the final phrase is to delete important information. CorinneSD (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S. If you don't like "in the entire galaxy", then leave out "entire" and just write "in the galaxy". CorinneSD (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

That's good. (Of course, 'known' would include other galaxies, so we were wrong there.) Rothorpe (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

O.k. Modified to: A very luminous red supergiant, Mu Cephei is the largest star visible to the naked eye, and one of the largest known. It's repetitive from what's already in the lede, but doesn't seem as grandiose. Note that at least one of the known larger stars is not in this galaxy (WOH G64) is probably in the LMC, and none of the dozen or so larger stars are visible to the naked eye. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, so 'known' is right, after all. Rothorpe (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Cornus (genus)

I'd just like to ask you for your opinion regarding the latest edit to Cornus (genus). An editor changed "Dogwood is rare in the fact that..." to "Dogwood is rare since...". Now, of course, the second version is more concise. I have rarely heard the construction "X is rare in the fact that...", but I wonder whether it might be appropriate here and slightly more precise than "Dogwood is rare since...". CorinneSD (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree: 'in the fact that' is rather weird. I'd say simply 'in that'. Rothorpe (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

H. L. Mencken 4

I was just looking at a series of edits made to H. L. Mencken. The editor added a sentence and then changed "sarcastically" to "caustic". There are now at least two problems:

1) the phrase, "with a caustic biting article....", is, I believe, now in the wrong place, and

2) there is something wrong with "a caustic biting article":

(a) that's two adjectives in a row, not separated by a comma, and

(b) "caustic" and "biting" are rather close in meaning, aren't they?

What do you recommending doing here? CorinneSD (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I can understand the editor's desire to avoid the use of "sarcastic" and "sarcastically" in close proximity, but sarcasm was Mencken's bread and butter, so it would be natural that the word would appear more than once. CorinneSD (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S.S. I did a search for the words "sarcasm", "sarcastic", and "sarcastically", and, other than in the caption, I did not find any other instance -- only the word "sarcastically" which was removed by this editor. Perhaps s/he was confusing it with the words "scathing" and "satirical", which are in the previous sentence. I went ahead and made some edits. I think it's all right now. CorinneSD (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's good. Rothorpe (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

W. H. Auden

Hello, Rothorpe! I noticed that an IP editor changed almost all of the "he"s to "Auden", and "his" to "Auden's" in W. H. Auden. The changes seem all to be in one section. While I agree that normally the name rather than the subject pronoun should be used when beginning a new paragraph, a lot of these paragraphs are relatively short, and if you look at the section in the article itself (rather than in Edit Mode), it might appear as if there are too many instances of "Auden" now. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I quite agree, Audens galore. Rothorpe (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, much better now. Rothorpe (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad you approve. CorinneSD (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The Whistleblower -- Today's Featured Article

I made a few minor copy-edits to the beginning of today's featured article (full form of the article). I didn't read the entire article, but after I saved my edits, I saw another problem. I'm not sure of the best way to solve it, though, so I thought I'd ask you. It's in the second paragraph of the lead. It says the film is the result of cooperation "between" three countries. As you know, "between" should be used with two items. What do you recommend? Leave it as is? Change "between" to "among", or some other solution? Feel free to make any necessary changes. CorinneSD (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I changed it to 'of'. Rothorpe (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. Whew! I just finished going through the revision history all the way back to your edit. I see there was a lot of vandalism and test edits; I guess that's to be expected with the Featured Article. I wonder about two edits:

1) One is a few steps back from the latest edit. An editor changed a number range that started "From... to ..." to "From ...- (hyphen, no less)....". I always lament the loss of words to numbers unless it is necessary. Can you check this to see if it is an instance where words would be acceptable?

I'm sorry. This edit was in the Joan Rivers article, in the section about the 1970s. I've changed it to "From...to...". CorinneSD (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

2) The revision at 16:40 by User:Piledhigheranddeeper really puzzles me. This editor changed the verb "downplay" to "play down", twice, with an edit summary saying something like "improved diction". To me, "downplay" is a very common and perfectly acceptable verb -- it is used often in the U.S. -- while "play down" means almost nothing to me. Is "play down" a British idiom? I'd really like to change them back to "downplay". What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I prefer 'downplay', so do change it back. And of course I agree about 'from' ... 'to': there has to be balance (I mention this on my user page). Yes, I can imagine lots of editing, and lots of bad editing, at the featured article. The same when somebody dies; I've taken Joan Rivers off my list for now, but I can never resist surveying the flood of edits. I'll go and have a look at the FA now... Rothorpe (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I changed both instances back. Did you see my note just above about the other edit? CorinneSD (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hooray! Saves me doing it. Thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Joan Rivers

Hello, FYI - By reverting my edit to the Joan Rivers article, you effectively restored the grammatical errors I'd correctedFroid (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC).

What grammatical errors? Rothorpe (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Joan Rivers 2

1) An editor added a period at the end of a file ending in 2014 to the Joan Rivers article at 15:16 today. It doesn't appear to be a sentence. Does that period belong there? CorinneSD (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I can't see the point of it. Rothorpe (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

2) The second-to-last sentence in the section Joan Rivers#Illness and death is as follows:

"On September 5, New York City medical examiner's office spokeswoman Julie Bolcer advised media that an autopsy had been completed, but that it had failed to conclusively identify the cause of Rivers's death."

I'm just wondering if you like the sound of "New York City medical examiner's office spokeswoman Julie Bolcer". The long modifier of "Julie Bolcer" seems a little long. Perhaps

"The spokeswoman of the New York City medical examiner's office, Julie Bolcer, advised media..."

or:

"Julie Bolcer, the spokeswoman of the New York City medical examiner's office, advised media..."

What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd go for the first of your versions, role introducing name. Rothorpe (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I'll get to that now. Would you take a look at the latest edit to Joan Rivers? I don't like them. I like the way it was before. CorinneSD (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I put the second version but now I'm wondering whether it should be "the spokeswoman for the New York City medical examiner's office" instead of "the spokeswoman of the New York City medical examiner's office". What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Rothorpe (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article -- Nebular hypothesis

A little while ago I looked at the lead of today's featured article, Nebular hypothesis. I didn't get beyond the first sentence. I thought the first sentence did not read well. Here it is:

"The nebular hypothesis is the most widely accepted model in cosmogony explaining the formation and evolution of the Solar System, which suggests that it formed from nebulous material in space."

There's something wrong with starting a sentence with "The nebular hypothesis is the most widely accepted model in cosmogony", following it with a participial phrase, and following that with a non-restrictive adjective clause. Even if one removes the participial phrase it does not sound right:

"The nebular hypothesis is the most widely accepted model in cosmogony..., which suggests that it formed from nebulous material in space."

I just can't believe that someone started an article like this and that it got approved by a enough editors to make it to Featured Article status. CorinneSD (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It's remarkable how many poor opening sentences there are on Wikipedia, as if people don't think they are worth checking. Will you make the changes? Rothorpe (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I want to run it by you first.

Here is the way it is now:

"In cosmogony, the nebular hypothesis is the most widely accepted model explaining the formation and evolution of the Solar System, which suggests that the Solar System formed from nebulous material in space."

How about this?

The nebular hypothesis is the most widely accepted model in the field of cosmogony to explain the formation and evolution of the Solar System. This hypothesis suggests that the Solar System formed from nebulous material in space.

Well, I'd have just put 'it', I think; anyway, I agree with the new sentence. Rothorpe (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, I see a problem with a sentence lower down -- the last sentence in the first paragraph:

"Some elements of the nebular hypothesis are echoed in modern theories of planetary formation, but most have been superseded."

My non-expert ear asks about "most" -- which? "Some elements"? or "modern theories of planetary formation"? How is a non-expert to know which is more modern, the nebular hypothesis or the modern theories? Shall I ask User:Vsmith about this? CorinneSD (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but I'd say it means "most elements of the nebular hypothesis". Rothorpe (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It is clear as is to me. Could repeat the "elements" for clarity: "Some elements of ... , but most elements have been ..." Vsmith (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I want to ask you about this sentence, the third sentence in the lead, I believe:

"Originally applied only to our own Solar System, this method of planetary system formation is now thought to be at work throughout the universe."

I don't think the word "only" is needed. I think, "Originally applied to our own Solar System" is clear and is enough. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, better without. Rothorpe (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Corsica

What do you think of the latest edit to Corsica in which an editor added the adverb "directly"? I think it is unnecessary. CorinneSD (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't see the point. Was it indirect before? Rothorpe (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Shetland

Can you check the latest edit to Shetland? An IP editor changed "UK" to Britain in what looks like an image file. CorinneSD (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No explanation, so I've reverted. Rothorpe (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Cinnamon

I was just looking at the latest edits to Cinnamon, and I've got to ask you something that I've been meaning to ask you for a while. I had been taught, and had always seen in grammar books, that when a subordinate adverbial clause follows the independent clause, no comma is needed after the independent clause. I grant that occasionally, especially in a very long or complicated sentence, a comma may be appropriate, but generally I do not use a comma there. The way I see it, if one reads

adverbial clause, independent clause,

one always pauses at the end of the adverbial clause, but when reading

independent clause adverbial clause, one does not normally pause at the end of the independent clause, and this is reflected in the punctuation. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It sounds right, but I find I need an example to talk about. Are you saying you would prefer no comma between 'Byzantium' and 'although'? Rothorpe (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. CorinneSD (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall any schooling on that and feel quite neutral, so do take it out. Rothorpe (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Rothorpe: I'm pinging you so that you can find this, rather than starting a new section for Cinnamon. [Thanks!] Would you mind looking at the latest edit to the article? It is at Cinnamon#Traditional medicine. The section consists of one sentence:

"Cinnamon has a long history of use in traditional medicine, but there is no evidence that it is useful to treat any medical condition."

My question is: is "is useful to treat" correct? It doesn't sound right. I think "is useful for treating" is more common. Would you go along with that correction? CorinneSD (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Less colloquial, yes. Rothorpe (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Laurentian Mountains

I just started reading Laurentian Mountains and I see that it is full of minor problems in syntax, spelling and word usage. I think I'm going to need your help. Feel free to jump in and fix what you can. CorinneSD (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've made one change (mya mya!). 'Rise in lakes' is a bit odd. ~I would have put 'rivers', but it seems one is a waterfall. Rothorpe (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Great minds think alike. I was struck by that sentence, too, and was going to ask you about it. I only realized that "rise" referred to rivers (plus that one waterfall -- but a waterfall has got to be part of a river, doesn't it?) when I saw it in Edit Mode. I wondered why we couldn't mention "river" or "rivers" in some way. Let me take a look at it again. CorinneSD (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I read the article on Montmorency Falls (which was the article in the link), and read that the falls are part of the Montmorency River which rises in Montmorency Lake. First I added the word "river" after all of those place names, then I changed the link to Montmorency River so that they're all rivers. I put "river" in lower-case. Is that all right, or does it have to be capitalized? CorinneSD (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No, that's excellent. Rothorpe (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Olive Schreiner

I just read the article on Olive Schreiner yesterday and made a few copy-edits. Today, I remembered that I had seen too many instances of the word "although" in the article and went back to change some of them. I changed one to "even though", which I actually think is better in that sentence. I looked at the others, and there is one that I'd like to change to "albeit". It's in the second paragraph of the lead. I wonder if you would look at it and

(a) tell me if you think "albeit" would work there, and

(b) tell me if you think "albeit" is too sophisticated for WP.

Also, I think the language of the first paragraph in the lead is too pretentious (or academic). I wonder if you could help me make it simpler and more down-to-earth. CorinneSD (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I think 'albeit' would be excellent there. Too sophisticated for WP? Impossible! Rothorpe (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the opening paragraph is perhaps a bit heavy. I can't think of any changes there though. Rothorpe (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Peter Warlock

Is there some WP style rule that says numbers should be used instead of words for the adjective for century? See the latest edit to Peter Warlock. CorinneSD (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. I don't understand that change. Rothorpe (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Before I undo that edit, can you tell me whether "ninth century" needs to be hyphenated? CorinneSD (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I like to hyphenate attributive compound adjectives, but many people don't bother. And you see things like 'ten year-old boy'... Rothorpe (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean instead of "ten-year-old boy"? I don't know why, but whereas I would definitely hyphenate "ten-year-old" in that phrase, and "six-foot-tall man", I somehow don't think the hyphen is necessary in "ninth century whatever", but I suppose it ought to be there. I'm going to read up on it in WP:MOS. CorinneSD (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Very wise! Rothorpe (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I left a query about this on my talk page. Also, I left a further question for you at Olive Schreiner on my talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin

An editor just added a link to "British" in Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, possibly to give equal time to CPG's British background since "American" was linked. I'm wondering whether either is needed. CorinneSD (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, overlinking. Fortunately the trend on WP seems to be away from that, on the whole. Rothorpe (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed the two links. (I think some editors may link "American" as follows: [[United States|American]] because they view the adjective "American" as applying to anyone from North, Central, or South America. I was shocked the first time I encountered this view (from a person from Latin America). To me, "American" always meant someone from the United States. But I don't think that kind of link is necessary when the article makes it clear where the person is from, or lived most of their life.)

Yes, indeed. I taught a lot of Latin Americans in the 70s, and it usually wasn't hard to persuade them that they were not Americans.

I have a question, though. In "British-American whatever", should it be a hyphen or an en-dash? (I don't understand the use of en-dashes instead of hyphens, particularly in things like this or date ranges. Typewriters only had hyphens.) CorinneSD (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It should be an en dash, because the two are in parallel. You could, informally, substiitute it for a stroke (as we used to call them): British/American; I think that's the best way to remember it. Rothorpe (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, typewriters only had hyphens. One thing I've learnt here is the different way hyphens were used on each side on the Atlantic to form dashes--like that in America, it would seem - but thus in England. Rothorpe (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting! I'm reading a book by Olive Schreiner called Dreams, published in 1932. I notice that they used em-dashes with a space on either side. Different style from today. I was thinking about adding a paragraph from her book to the article about her. What do you think of that?

And why not? Rothorpe (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you imagine typing all day on a typewriter? This reminds me of a very interesting program I just saw on public television on Sunday about a woman who was a radio operator working as the intermediary between the French resistance and the British govt in WWII in Paris. Her name was Noor Inayat Khan. Now I want to read more about her. CorinneSD (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I used to type a lot. I remember how I bashed the keys when I first had a computer. Rothorpe (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I changed it. In the second paragraph in Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin#Early life is the following sentence:

"Her mother did not choose to spend money on her college education, but only on her brother's."

I thought it sounded a bit inelegant. I'm wondering if it would sound better as follows:

"Her mother chose not to spend money on her college education, but only on her brother's", or

"Rather than spending money on her college education, her mother chose to spend it on her brother's".

or something else. CorinneSD (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Something compelled me to sleuth it. Gone! Rothorpe (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)...And 'college education' sounded out of place in that British context.

Good work! I think often, poorly written text often goes hand-in-hand with being unsourced. CorinneSD (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

True indeed. Rothorpe (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Robert Antoine Pinchon

I've just begun reading the article on Robert Antoine Pinchon, inspired by the image of one of his paintings that Hafs placed on my talk page (s/he wants me to nominate the picture at Featured Pictures). I wanted to ask you something. In the first paragraph of Robert Antoine Pinchon#Early life, the second sentence reads:

"His father, Robert Pinchon, a librarian, journalist, playwright and drama critic, was an intimate friend of Guy de Maupassant and also became a close protege of Gustave Flaubert."

I was just going to ask you whether you think "protege" should have the accents on it (Wiktionary lists the one with accents as an alternative spelling). I think I've seen it with the accents -- protégé -- more often than I've seen it without the accents. Which do you think is better?

I'm a fan of English not having accents, as were my students. So strictly optional. Though there is a minimal pair, I forget what it is, distinguished by final -é. Rothorpe (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Then I went back and re-read the sentence and decided there was something wrong with it. I don't like "...was an intimate friend...and also became...". I think it should be either:

...was an intimate friend...who also became...", or

...was an intimate friend...and a close protege of G Fl.

Which do you like better? (I also wonder about the great amount of information about Robert Antoine Pinchon's father in this article.) CorinneSD (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the first (though I don't mind it as it is). Rothorpe (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, since the sentence starts, "His [that is, Robert Antoine Pinchon's] father...", I thought there was a bit of ambiguity in "...and became a close protege of G Fl"; I know it refers to the father, but it's a bit confusing; it could apply to the son, since "protege" usually refers to a young person.

Yes, the two Roberts are confusing, but the article is very careful to distinguish them (since his son..., RA's father...). I can't think of a way to do it better. Rothorpe (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

PS Very nice gallery at Post-Impressionism. Rothorpe (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it. I enjoyed the pictures at the bottom of the Robert Antoine Pinchon article.

I wanted to ask you about something in the Robert Antoine Pinchon article. As I was reading through it, it seemed to me that there was an inordinate number of dates -- exact dates, to the day. I wondered whether all those dates were necessary. The dates seemed to clutter up the article and make the meaning of the sentences hard to grasp. Would you read through the article slowly again and see what you think? CorinneSD (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I find I can glide over dates easily enough, it's the long stretches of italics that irk me. Rothorpe (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not to say you shouldn't prune the dates, of course. Rothorpe (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Hafspajen: What do you think about my comment just above this about the plethora of dates in the article, and, in particular, exact dates? CorinneSD (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

WEll, I might agree that they are quite a lot of dates... but there is an additional problem to. There is a person who wrote up this article, if you look at the history. You might want to dicuss this with him/her first. Then when you agreed - change. I always - well - not always (that would be too much to say) - but many times - try to check. If it is an article edited by a wide range of people and no username is coming back in the changes constantly, just do what you want. But if there is - you might want to dicuss. And if they don't agree - well, most of the time is wisest to leve it . Many times they will do make those changes anyway - when they are left a certain amount of time to think all by themselfs. Hafspajen (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Camellia

I had two questions after reading the article Camellia. I needed the knowledge of a botanist to be sure about the first one, so I left a comment at User talk:Sminthopsis84#Camellia, but your opinions regarding English are welcome, either here or there. CorinneSD (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you about 'also'. Rothorpe (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Numbers

There is an exception -- Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures. Thus, 3 of 500. Not "three of 500". Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I came across a similar example and that occurred to me. So thanks for confirming. Rothorpe (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Papermaking

Hello, Rothorpe! I'm just wondering whether "handmade" is one word. An editor changed "Hand Made Paper" to "Handmade paper" in Papermaking. If it's not one word, then the caps need to be changed to lower case: "Hand made paper". (I even wonder if "papermaking" is one word.) CorinneSD (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back to my talk page, and I hope the pesky pooter behaves itself. Both handmade and papermaking do very nicely as one word. Rothorpe (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you. It's nice to be back. CorinneSD (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Dante Alighieri

I've been following a few changes to the transcription of Dante's name at the beginning of the article. I'm just wondering if you can translate the Latin in the edit summary about three edits back. CorinneSD (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

'Better too much than to run out'. But I cheated: the edit summary links to an article on it! Rothorpe (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh. I guess we would say, "better too much than too little". Kind of the opposite from "Sometimes less is more". CorinneSD (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Harold Bloom

What's the point of the second hatnote at the top of Harold Bloom? They're two entirely different names. I think that's ridiculous. CorinneSD (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I suppose the idea is that they're both American intellectuals, but then there are a lot more American intellectual Blooms no doubt. Rothorpe (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

John Forbes Nash, Jr.

Could you please look at the latest edits to John Forbes Nash, Jr. by an IP editor? I don't know about the last one, but I don't like any of the ones before that, made at 09:56 on 14 September. CorinneSD (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

All gone! Rothorpe (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yay! Good. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Ray Charles

Hi Rothorpe. My name is Skyler and I am a student at Cornell University. In one of my classes we have a group project which requires us to select a Wikipedia article and make substantial edits to that article. My group chose Ray Charles and I noticed that you have edited that page recently. We are all new to Wikipedia so I just wanted to invite you to check out our section of the talk page where we have begun to propose our additions and give us any feedback you may have! Thanks! Skylerd23 (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Skyler. I've just posted a standard welcome on your page and on that of your colleague, as it's very important you know Wikipedia's policies; sorry if you are already well versed. Yes, of course, I'll be glad to help in any way. Just contact me again here. Good luck! Rothorpe (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Help!

You'll see on my talk page, near the bottom, that Hafs asked me to copy edit something (s/he provided a link). It turns out that it is an article on Jonathan Hill that is being created -- I'm not sure by whom (Hafs?). I'm working on it now, and doing my best. Occasionally I've offered two possible alternative words and will let Hafs (or you) choose. It's clearly still a work in progress, and since I know nothing about this person, it is a challenge to get just the right phrasing. I'm wondering if you are on-line and available if you could review my changes and make any further ones you think are needed. I really struggled with a few sentences. I'm sure Hafs won't mind. I'll be saving my changes in just a minute. Please wait until you see them. I'd rather you reviewed them before anyone else. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's Hafs's sandbox, so it'll be him working on a new article. I'll go and have a look now. Rothorpe (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I see he's translating an article from Swedish, perhaps from Swedish WP. Excellent changes as ever. I would have put in a post-parenthetical comma instead of the pre-andian one; that's the only (useless) observation I can make. Do you want me to go through it in detail? Perhaps you should ask him if I'm welcome first---after all, it's his sandbox. Rothorpe (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I will ask. Where is the pre-andian comma? I suppose you mean the pre-"and"-ian comma. It took me a minute to figure that one out. Where is it? CorinneSD (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

'Illustrations, and diagrams'. But do keep it if you prefer: it's just a matter of taste in this case (and most). (I thought of 'preandian', but it was too ugly.) Rothorpe (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for asking him. Rothorpe (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we've talked about this before, but I forget what you said. In school I had been taught not to use a comma before "and" in a list of items, but I had seen that comma added by other editors, and had seen editors expressing preference for it on user pages, so I thought it was considered more acceptable (or British style). I haven't really known what to do. So I removed it. CorinneSD (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's a Br/Am thing, though I recall a certain American who is a stickler for it. I think it clarifies in certain long sentences but is otherwise unnecessary. Rothorpe (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Then we agree. (Let's remember that. I always forget.)

See the last exchange under "Nom" on my talk page: User talk:CorinneSD#Nom. Then look at the sentence in context. Can you think of any other phrase besides the one we can't use and Hafs' "knowledgeability"? Go ahead and reply there. CorinneSD (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you point me to the original 'keen grasp'? Rothorpe (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's the link: User:Hafspajen/Jonathan Hill (theologian). Just look at the Revision History. You'll see on my talk page that Hafs chose one phrase, "his in-depth understanding of", and already changed it, but after looking at it in context, I felt "his in-depth knowledge of" was better, so I left a "Note to editor" (visible in Edit Mode). Any further suggestions are most welcome, of course. CorinneSD (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, 'in-depth knowledge' is good. Rothorpe (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Band/musician lead style

Greetings! I absolutely adore your formatting conventions. I agree wholeheartedly with every one of them, and it's particularly refreshing to see someone vocal about correct dash/hyphen use. I'll be sure to take some tips from this list of yours as well. One thing on which I'd appreciate some feedback is my longtime introduction to album articles. This (ex. 1, ex. 2) has been my standardised lead style since 2008:

"Album Name is the n'th album by singer/guitarist/keyboardist/drummer/bassist Their Name, ..."

"Album Name is the n'th album by the band [no genre] Their Name, ..."

"Album Name is the n'th album by [genre] band Their Name, ..."

Are those correct in your view, or should it be "by the guitarist" / "by the heavy metal band"? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It's always nice to get positive feedback, many thanks. As it happens I was reading your page the other day, and agree with almost all of it. (What was the article?) That 'the' I discussed with Corinne (see above and below) a while back and we agreed that it was journalese to leave it out and hence better style (and "Wikipedia is not paper") to include it - but I can't always be bothered to insert it. Rothorpe (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa

I saw an exchange on User:Art LaPella's talk page regarding this article, so I decided to look at it. I agree with Art that "who" should be used for a person or people rather than "that", and I changed some in the article. I also changed some past tense verbs to past perfect tense. I changed two em-dashes to en-dashes. I tried to fix the 2 - 4 fold to 2 no-break-space + en-dash between the 2 and the 4, but since 2-fold is usually hyphenated, I don't know whether it should be 2 hyphen no-break space 4 hyphen fold. (Also, it's in a quote, so I don't know whether it should be changed at all.) But I didn't think "2 + space + hyphen + space + 4 + regular space + fold" was right. Can you take a look at it?

Better to use words: twofold to fourfold, no? Otherwise very fiddly.

How about two- to four-fold? CorinneSD (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Also. Rothorpe (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, I didn't really read the article carefully. I was mainly looking at the "that's". There are probably other corrections that need to be made. CorinneSD (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, it's on my watchlist. Your changes were fine, of course. Rothorpe (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw an addition to the article by the editor who is working on it, and I didn't like the plural verb, and, in the next sentence, plural subject and verb, to refer to an organization, particularly since singular was already used in the previous paragraph. I tried to make the edit, but got Edit Conflict, so just exited and waited. Then I tried again, but this time I forgot to change "they have" to "it has" in the second sentence. Now, before I go back in and change that, I wanted to ask you whether you thought "they have" (to refer to Medecins sans Frontiers) is non-sensical following a sentence using the singular or makes sense. What do you recommend? Shall I go ahead and change "they have" to "it has", or leave it? CorinneSD (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a minefield I never enter, as it's a Br/Am contrast. Even if there's an inconsistency I back away... Rothorpe (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, consistent use of either would do. Rothorpe (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I've decided to ask User:BrianGroen for his preference regarding both of these issues. CorinneSD (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

He is admirably non-commital! So just go ahead and edit it your way. Rothorpe (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I left a note on Brian's talk page. I've changed the "2 - 4 fold". I checked on Wiktionary and, as you wrote above, twofold and fourfold are one word (each, that is), not hyphenated, so I put a hyphen only after "two". I haven't gotten to the singular-plural issue yet. I made one more minor edit, to the last paragraph in the section "Projections". I added a comma after 5 million because "half of them" seemed to be hanging in the air without it. But it still sounds a bit strange. Do you want to look at it? CorinneSD (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Essential comma, I'd say. Rothorpe (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

~

Here's the link to the "Projections" section: Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#Projections. CorinneSD (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been reading the article and have made a few minor edits. I'm now reading about the various countries, not far from the beginning of the article. I have two questions for you (after you answer my other question just above):

1) In the section Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#Nations with local transmission, fifth paragraph of the Sierra Leone sub-section, that starts "On 26 August", should "worst affected" be hyphenated: "worst-affected"?

Yes if it's an attributive adjective, no if it's predicative. Since you ask, I guess it's probably the former, and will say no more if yes... Rothorpe (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

2) In the section Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#Nations with local transmission, the second-to-last sentence of the section on Nigeria, do you think "As a result" is necessary? It struck me that it wasn't necessary. Why "as a result"? but I thought I'd ask you. CorinneSD (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a relic. It should certainly go. Rothorpe (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's another question for you and perhaps User:BrianGroen, too:

In the section Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#Nations with imported cases, in the sub-section on the United States, second paragraph begins:

"On 4 September, a Boston physician, Rick Sacra, was airlifted from Liberia to be treated in the United States. He is the third US missionary, working for Serving In Mission (SIM), who has tested positive for the disease."

In the second sentence, the participial phrase "working for Serving In Mission (SIM)", is ambiguous. It sounds like he is "the third US missionary [to be] working for Serving In Mission (SIM) in Liberia". I'm pretty sure that that is not what was meant. I think the phrase is just indicating what Sacra was doing in Liberia when he got sick. I think the phrase needs to be placed in a different place, even a different sentence, either the first sentence, after his name, or possibly the fourth sentence. What do you suggest? CorinneSD (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's far more likely that the author of that sentence didn't realise that commas would be wrong there, so I'd just remove them and make it into a defining phrase. If it's wrong someone will know. Rothorpe (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for picking that up.. Please do the necessary changes. BrianGroen (talk) 05:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

But looking at the text, I see Corinne was right. Fixed. Rothorpe (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Beetroot

The caption to the first image in Beetroot says "A bundle of beetroot". We would be more likely to say "A bunch of beets" (or "A bunch of beetroot", I guess). Before I change it, I thought I'd ask you whether "bundle" is a common word for describing a bunch of a vegetable (such as carrots or onions) in England, or whether you would use "bunch" also. CorinneSD (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, either sounds fine. I tend to think of bunch as being held - a bunch of flowers - while a bundle is on the ground or table, but maybe that's just me. Rothorpe (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

We use "bundle" for rags: "a bundle of rags", clothes and newspapers, and "bunch" for vegetables, flowers and people. I'll bet you don't do much shopping for vegetables. CorinneSD (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Brits have the same usage. Alas I'm too slow to push trolleys around Lusophone supermarkets these days. Rothorpe (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I just saw this. I'm glad to know you have the same usage re "bundle" and "bunch". Re trolleys, we call them carts -- shopping carts. The only trolleys in the United States are in San Francisco, going up and down the middle of the streets. But I like seeing the word "trolleys". Delightful. CorinneSD (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hivite

Could you look at the latest edit to Hivite? Besides the need to change the two hyphens to en-dashes, I'm wondering whether "and" is needed. I'm not sure, but I think it reads better with "and" (one has to skip over the list of seven tribes in order to "hear" the structure of the sentence). What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I looked at this several times and kept changing my mind, but last time it was no 'and'. I'll see how it looks now. Rothorpe (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I continue to be distracted by those references in brackets---shouldn't they be inside the sentences? Rothorpe (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean Exodus 34:11, etc.? Those references in parentheses is an alternate style of noting references. I guess those particular ones refer either just to Jebusites (the last item in the list of seven) or to all of those tribes.

Yes, well, I think they should be inside the sentences: they command too much attention after the full stops. Rothorpe (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you mean all the other ones in that paragraph (article?). That particular one, after the list of tribes, was not only inside the sentence, it was inside the pair of en-dashes. I guess if it was wrong, Hertz would have changed that. Do references go inside the sentence if the entire sentence is from that source? If you compare it to the way reference numbers are used, it looks like they can be either inside a sentence or out (after punctuation), depending upon what is being referenced. Is it just those parenthetical references that should be inside the punctuation? I guess MoS would have something on that. I don't know much about citations, except what I had to do in college papers. CorinneSD (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I wonder whether the adjective clause "whose land had been promised to the Children of Israel" applies to only that one tribe, the Hivite tribe, or to all of those tribes. It's not clear to me. I'm going to ping Hertz1888. CorinneSD (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

All the seven tribes, as mentioned at the beginning the sentence, I imagine. Rothorpe (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Per the grammatical construction (the enumeration of tribes set off by dashes), "whose" (which I changed to which) refers to Canaan. That also squares with my basic biblical knowledge. I also fixed the punctuation. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it makes sense now. Rothorpe (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation

I was checking WP's MoS to find out the correct placement of the final period when there is a quote inside a quote, and I came across something I wanted to ask you about. In WP:MOSQUOTE, "Quotations inside quotations", is the following example:

He said, "That book claims, 'Voltaire said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."'".

You can see that all the quotation marks are inside the period. Doesn't that conflict with the statement in a section lower down in the MoS, at WP:MOSLQ, at "Punctuation inside or outside"?:

On the English Wikipedia, use logical quotation style in all articles, regardless of the variety of English in which they are written. Examples for guidance are given below.

Where a quotation is a sentence and coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, terminal punctuation should normally be placed inside the closing quotation mark. CorinneSD (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the closing bracket before the final stop was missing; I've supplied it. Rothorpe (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't even noticed that when I was looking at it before. I don't think brackets/parentheses are needed there. I removed them and put a colon. I was referring to the quotes (no matter how many -- there just happen to be several) which are inside the final period, whereas the statement at WP:MOSLQ says at least the last double quotation marks, if not all, should be outside the final period -- because it is a complete sentence. Do you see what I mean? Now, if the final double quotation marks should be moved to outside the period, do the others -- a double and a single -- stay inside the period, or go outside the period with the final double? CorinneSD (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I had a look at these this afternoon and my poor brain got rather befuddled. Please would you make the changes and I'll review (and I daresay, approve) them. I certainly agree about the colon... Rothorpe (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Other than changing the parentheses to the colon, which I did yesterday, I don't want to make any changes to MoS without being sure. I'm going to ping Sminthopsis84 to see what s/he thinks about this. I so rarely see single quotations right inside double quotations, and even less double, single, double, that I don't know if they can be separated, such as double, single, period, double (putting the final double outside the period, as is suggested at WP:MOSLQ), or whether all three could go outside the period. CorinneSD (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't try to sort out such things here. (I think that footnote indicators should come before commas if they apply to the material before the comma, so I'm clearly at sea with wikipedia styles). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If you make a change, Corinne, please link to it here as precisely as possible. Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Henri-Edmond Cross

With the help of Hafspajen, I made my first nomination of an image of a painting by Henri-Edmond Cross at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Evening Air, by Henri-Edmond Cross. I really like the painting and have even added it to my user page. I wonder if you would vote for it, that is, express support for the nomination. CorinneSD (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, a very nice bit of pointillism from a painter I'd never heard of. I went to have a look at his article, and found a comma before a bracket, the one that opens the parenthesis containing his dates. I went to remove it, then changed my mind and decided it should be relocated after the parenthesis. It could be said that the brackets eliminate the need for a comma, make it look fussy. Didn't we discuss this? What did we decide?

I think I have an answer to your previous query but will have a look at the article first. Rothorpe (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I still have to look at that bracket in the Henri-Edmond Cross article, but I wanted to tell you that I've added more images to my user page, including some paintings. CorinneSD (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, very good taste. And I'm glad you've moved the vases from the top, time for a change! Rothorpe (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at it. I think the comma before the pair of curved brackets (which we call parentheses) is the ending-comma of a pair around "born [alternate name]". I don't think the comma needs to be after the parentheses, but perhaps the dates (with the parentheses, or curved brackets), should be moved. Compare Ford Madox Ford and Mark Twain. CorinneSD (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin

@Vsmith:, @Rothorpe: I wonder if you would look at the latest edits to Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin. The edits seem to be good-faith edits in an attempt to make the language more precise. Some changes might have accomplished that, but I'm concerned that, overall, it is now wordier than it was before. Also, I don't like "after himself deriving the same result". I wonder if you could determine whether any of the changes are an improvement and deserve to remain, or whether you want to undo all of them at once. If the latter is done, perhaps a kindly worded edit summary would not totally discourage a new editor. CorinneSD (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Rothorpe, I meant to put this on my talk page. Shall I leave it here or move it? CorinneSD (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem for me, no need to move it. Rothorpe (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Is 'in agreement with the accepted belief of the time, which held that the stars had approximately the same elemental composition as the Earth' original research or well established? That's what seems to have inspired the edit, which overall seem OK, if more wordy. Presumably the latter, but there's no ref. Rothorpe (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's the only part I thought perhaps should have been referenced. I guess the other changes are all right. I decided to go ahead and re-word the last sentence. I think it reads better now. CorinneSD (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Rothorpe (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Late to the party -- but yes, the rewording is an improvement. On looking at the Henry Norris Russell content about the incident I see this statement: After Payne was proven correct, Russell gave all the credit for discovering that the sun had a different chemical composition from Earth, to Cecilia Payne in his paper. That is a bit different from ..he acknowledged her work briefly in his paper and both are sourced to Padman 2004. The ref closely supports the second, but not so much the first. Vsmith (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Corinne? Rothorpe (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess I don't quite understand Vsmith's last statement: "The ref closely supports the second, but not so much the first." I don't know what you mean by "the second" and "the first". By "the second", do you mean "he acknowledged her work briefly in his paper"? By "the first" do you mean, "Russell gave all the credit... to Cecilia Payne in his paper"? If so, then is the wording the way it is now correct? I'm sorry; I'm just not understanding your point. CorinneSD (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of clarity. Yes - the source supports "he acknowledged her work briefly in his paper". However, the "Russell gave all the credit..." in the Henry Norris Russell article is not supported - although her autobiography (which I haven't seen) may support that. Vsmith (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Castle Combe

I looked at some edits to Castle Combe. While I agree with most of them, I think removing the fact that the town is renowned for some things, particularly the market cross, creates a problem when the market cross is mentioned at the beginning of the History section with no previous reference to it. Now there is also no mention of the medieval church in the article. The article is so short that there is no reason to leave out information about the market cross and the medieval church. If you look at the article on Woolpit, the lead contains the things for which the village is notable. Additional details are given later in the article. What do you suggest? CorinneSD (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the lead is now too short, though that was deliberate, clearly. Make the changes you want, and mention the discussion here? Rothorpe (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Claude Monet

Hello, Rothorpe! I just read the article on Claude Monet and made a few minor edits. I want to ask you about a few sentences at which I paused as I was reading the article:

1) The first sentence in the lead is the following:

"Oscar-Claude Monet...was a founder of French Impressionist painting, and the most consistent and prolific practitioner of the movement's philosophy of expressing one's perceptions before nature, especially as applied to plein-air landscape painting."

I'm wondering whether "before nature" is entirely clear. In this particular phrase, "of expressing one's perceptions before nature", the adverb "before" might mean "in front of" (or "in the face of"), which is probably what was meant, or "before in time", or "in advance of". I just think there is a touch of ambiguity there. I'm wondering whether another phrase besides "before nature" would make this clearer. Perhaps:

expressing one's perceptions in response to nature
expressing one's perceptions of nature
expressing one's perceptions when confronted by nature...?

'Perceptions of' is fine; 'responses to' may be better... Rothorpe (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, the last is the closest to the original. Rothorpe (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

2) In the second paragraph in the section "Monet and Impressionism" is as follows:

"Impression, Sunrise was painted in 1872, depicting a Le Havre port landscape. From the painting's title the art critic Louis Leroy, in his review, "L'Exposition des Impressionnistes," which appeared in Le Charivari, coined the term "Impressionism". It was intended as disparagement but the Impressionists appropriated the term for themselves."

I thought the second sentence was a bit tortured and I wondered what you thought of re-wording it as follows:

In his review, "L'Exposition des Impressionnistes", which appeared in Le Charivari, the art critic Louis Leroy coined the term "Impressionism" from the painting's title. (I'm not even sure "from the painting's title" is needed. I think the sentence reads better without it. The next sentence explains the motivation behind the new term.)

I wouldn't change it, actually: I like the way it starts with the title and ends with the term. Rothorpe (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If this wording is used, then "It" in the next sentence would need to be changed to "The term" or "This term".

3) Some details that appear in the second half of the last paragraph in the section "Paris" also appear in both paragraphs in the section "Franco-Prussian War and Argenteuil", making some details seem to be out of chronological order. It would be something of a task to sort out these details, reducing duplication as much as possible, and place them in the right section and in the right order. I wonder whether I should ask Hafspajen to help with this, or whether you want to tackle it.

Thanks for asking me first, but... Rothorpe (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

4) In the second paragraph in the section Claude Monet#Impressionism there is a list of paintings with numbers, mostly single digit numbers. I'm wondering whether you recommend changing the numbers to the words for the numbers or leaving it as it is.

Normally I would, yes, but as there are so many of them it's perhaps better for glancing over. Rothorpe (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

O.K. to all. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Restructuring Ray Charles

Hi Rothorpe. I made the restructuring edit on the wikipedia page because I don't think the structure made sense before. For example, the early life section was separated from the rest of his life by his career section. I think its a lot easier to navigate the article when his life is in one section and his career is in the other. Please respond to this on the "Restructuring" section I made on the talk page. Skylerd23 (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Love the Deaths normally follow careers comment

I recall, though, in the case of Jim Reeves, his record successes really took off, at least in the UK, after he died. For him death was a great career move, albeit somewhat physically challenging. Fiddle Faddle 10:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

And, as Buddy Holly sang upon hearing of his own death, It Doesn't Matter Anymore. Rothorpe (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you recommend?

If you have the time and inclination, I'd appreciate your advice on something. In my Barbara Rubin draft (which you edited recently - thanks), I have some double references which I think look ugly and make the text less readable. But for certain statements I kind of feel like I need more than one source to back them up. Also, in some places I have a reference plus a note; not sure if that's avoidable. Any thoughts? (Sorry if this is inappropriate. I did click on the Help Desk link, but was intimidated by the interface.) Rosekelleher (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You're most welcome on my talk page, but I'm sorry I can't be of much help, as I tend to leave reference matters to others. Must say, though, that I'm used to seeing lots of them together, it doesn't bother me at all, just makes the article look well researched. I'll go and have another look at it now. Rothorpe (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Cat

Hi Rothorpe,

That is a fine picture and a nice cat (your cat, after all). But if you go carefully through the article you will realize that picures are relatively scarce and have been chosen carefully as to illustrate each particular section. Yours is out of context. Also, please check the varipus categories of "cat" in Commons. You will find there excellent images of cats, none of them in the article. Yes, I understand that you would like to see your cat in an article (as many of us), but your picture is not particularly illustrative and this is not probably the best place to use it. Best regards, Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

What makes you think it's my cat? Rothorpe (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a wild assumption. But my mistake does not invalidate the fact that the picture is out of context. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, but it's a nice image, with an informative caption that's not duplicated in the article. I see no need to remove it. Rothorpe (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think that being a nice image, with an informative caption that's not duplicated in the article is a strong enough reason for keeping the picture in the article. Pictures are (should be) used to illustrate specific features described in the articles, not to decorate them. Please see the talk page of the article. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The cat has been granted refuge on my user page. Rothorpe (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Chilham

What do you think of the latest edit to Chilham changing "around" to "on"? "Centered on" sounds odd to me. Maybe it's British English. CorinneSD (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly not my usage. A play centres on a main character, yes. Much prefer 'around'. Rothorpe (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Rothorpe: The editor replaced "around" with "on" again. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I've changed it back with an edit summary that attempts an explanation, and elsewhere added a couple of commas. Rothorpe (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

All good. I'm wondering whether "well preserved" right after that should have a hyphen. What do you think of my edits at Robin Maugham (don't have the link here -- it's at the end of your present talk page). I don't understand how the article could be such a mess. I had gotten it into good shape about six months ago. CorinneSD (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Google translate

I just saw something I hadn't seen before and thought I'd share it in case you hadn't seen it. In "Preferences", the "Browsing" section, I had already selected Google translate, but I hadn't noticed the instruction next to it, which reads:

"open a translation popup for the selected text or the word under the cursor when pushing the shift button".

So that's the easy way to get a word translated. I'll try it out. Had you known about that? CorinneSD (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

No. I can't find anything to do with 'browsing'. Did you try it? Rothorpe (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, apropos comments on your talk page, I use both Google Chrome and Internet Explorer. I decided on balance that editing WP was easier with the former. Rothorpe (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa

I've just started reading through Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. I made one or two minor edits so far. I wanted to ask you about a sentence in the middle of the last paragraph in the lead:

"A United Nations spokesperson stated "they could stop the Ebola outbreak in West Africa in 6 to 9 months, but only if a 'massive' global response is implemented."

I just wonder if the punctuation is correct after "stated". Should there be a comma there? If so, should "they" be capitalized? I know sometimes it's all right to go right from the sentence to the quoted words without a comma, but I thought "stated" is similar to "said", which would require a comma. Perhaps after "stated that" no comma is needed. What do you recommend? CorinneSD (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I've become used to this spare style and usually just leave it, but there would be a comma and a capital in a novel. The numbers would probably be spelt out as well. I reckon I'd put the comma and capital in, as I agree that a 'that' is needed to justify leaving them out. Rothorpe (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. I'll fix that. I want to ask you what you think of this sentence from the lead:

"Many of the areas that are seriously affected by the outbreak are areas of extreme poverty with limited access to soap or running water to help control the spread of disease."

I think it has a few too many words -- that is, is a bit wordy. I also don't like the use of the word "are" twice. I'm trying to figure out a way to make it more concise without making it that clipped journalese:

Many of the areas ~~that are~~ seriously affected by the outbreak are areas of extreme poverty with limited access to soap or running water to help control the spread of disease.

Would taking out "that are" be an improvement?

Also, what would you think of changing "or" to "and": "with limited access to soap and running water"? CorinneSD (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with both of those changes. Rothorpe (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! CorinneSD (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

In the section Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#Countries with local transmission, at the beginning of the "United States" section, what is the antecedent of "its"? Is it clear that it is "the United States"? "The United States Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention" seems to go together. Perhaps an apostrophe (for possession) needs to be added after "United States". Or should "its" be changed to "the country's"? CorinneSD (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I think 'United States' is just used as an adjective and the antecedent is 'Centers'. (In British English it would probably be followed by 'their', not 'its'; not sure if that'd be an improvement.) So I shall have to declare it correct. Rothorpe (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC) - Just noticed your suggestion, 'the country's'. Perhaps just omitting 'United States' would make it clearer: after all, we have just had a heading to that effect. Rothorpe (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking again, I think it's clear enough. What do you think now that time has passed? Rothorpe (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC) [Made a mistake with archiving this page; seems to be all in order now though. Rothorpe (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)]

Nishapur

A little while ago I made a few edits to one section in Nishapur. I thought the font of that section's heading seemed too large, so I changed it. Then I looked at the whole article and saw that a lot of the headings seemed too large. (I don't remember seeing it that way before.) Is it just because I have my screen enlarged to about 125%, or are the headings really too large? Can you take a look at it? CorinneSD (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It's fine. I switched back 'Newspaper publishing' to the normal level. Yes, it's hard to adjust after, what, three weeks away. Rothorpe (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

...Or the enlarged screen, or a different browser, or... Rothorpe (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

O.K. It's just that I had my screen enlarged to 125% before, on my previous computer, as I do now on the new one. I don't remember seeing the sub-headings being so large. But, I trust your judgment. Thanks for fixing it. CorinneSD (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)