User talk:Nev1

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Treasures of Japan (shrines)/archive1

Hi there; can you revisit this FLC when you get the chance? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Just wanted to let you know, that I implemented your suggestion concerning the ken ( I would suggest though that for the notes it be made clearer, as they come before the usage section) after the nomination discussion was archived: I added "ken" as a unit to the notes, e.g. "2×2" -> "2 ken×2 ken". Should be clear now. BTW, you might be interested to review List of National Treasures of Japan (castles) which is currently at FLC; though judging by the very quick responses, it might not be a problem to get sufficient reviews. bamse (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hanley Castle High School

Hi Nev, if you get time could you possibly do a quick peer review of Hanley Castle High School? As a school article in Worcs I think it's close to GA. I wrote it myself a while ago and unfortunately nobody has bothered to edit or comment on it, but it is complete.--Kudpung (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks in as good a shape as any other article I've seen on a British school, but it's not an area I'm very familiar with (it might be worth dropping WP:SCHOOLS a note if you haven't already). It is of course difficult to write about most schools because only the oldest have books about them, but you're lucky enough to have picked an interesting example. It seems genera The lead needs a little work, for example it mentions that "The school reverted to being an 11–18 school in the 1990s", but that's the first mention of an age range. Also, there's "In 1972, the school opened its doors to girls. In 1974 it became a mixed gender, voluntary controlled comprehensive": if the school began admitting girls in 1972, it was already a mixed-gender school, so the next sentence just needs to read "In 1974, it became a voluntary controlled comprehensive" (although there's still the issue of having two adjacent sentences starting with "In 197x"). For somewhere so old, the architecture section is a good idea, although it perhaps shuold be after the history section so that the reader has some reference to the school's history first. It could do with a little beefing up; to that end Images of England has some info (it would be good to specify which Grade(s) of listed building) and I'm sure the Pevsner guide to Worcestershire will have something useful. With regard to the history section, it seems to cover the subject well although I wonder if there are any quotes from former students that could lend a little colour (perhaps about how children were taught in the 19th century as it's not something people will know much about). Perhaps the sport section could be merged with the facilities section? Just a suggestion, I don't think it's important. Each person in the alumni section needs to be sourced. I think you'd stand a decent chance at GAC, although more may be expected that I'm not aware of. I like what you've done, and the most complete school article I've helped write is Audenshaw School, but I don't think much can be learned from that. Good luck. Nev1 (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Jumping in completely uninvited (so please excuse me for that) in addition to Nev1's comments above I'd add that for GA you need to take a close look at two obvious things. The punctuation used in this article and the citations. Quite a few sentences don't end with full stops for instance, and all of the citations need to give full details including publisher and last access date. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Terrington St Clement mound

Hi Nev

Sorry but fogort to post that the solution was found...

It was built as a fresh water reservoir and was part of a barrage system proposed for the river estuary in the 70s

"It was a trial earth bank structure to test the feasibility of building a barrage/etc across the Wash" kindly provided by Graeme Leggett (here)

1972: a feasibility study commissioned by the Government to build a barrage across half of The Wash to capture the freshwater from the four main rivers, to improve navigation through sea locks, to provide recreational facilities and an area of land for a power station, etc. was undertaken. This led to the circular trial bank/bund being built to the east of Sutton Bridge and the Nene. The purpose of which was to act as reservoirs but the report concluded it would be too costly.

(http://www.washestuary.org.uk/details.cfm?id=117)

sorry - I did write found on the others but missed that one in mil his.

Chaosdruid (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see, it did look to neat to be natural. Thanks for the explanation, it is a curious little site. It's fair enough to forget about that task force, I think it's pretty much inactive anyway. Nev1 (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Parc Cwm long cairn

I sourced a copy of Whittle & Wysocki's 1998 report on the cromlech through my county library. They very kindly photocopied (almost) the entire report for me. It is written for a knowledgeable audience and is rather technical (Roald Dahl it ain't), but I think I've managed to understand a fair bit of it, and have incorporated many of the points not raised elsewhere into the article. It has taken rather longer than I expected, but I reckon the article is as ready now as it will ever be. So, if you are still prepared to give your opinion on it, I would love to hear it. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The article looks good, and I see that Malleus has had a go at the prose so that's good news. I can't guaranttee being able to have a proper read through before next week, but I'll make an effort. Nev1 (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There's no rush Nev, it's taken months to get to this stage. Another couple of weeks shouldn't make much difference. Your help thus far has been invaluable. Malleus has been fantastic, BTW. Thanks for recommending him to me. The way he sees things is inspired. I am in awe. Glad you're still interested, though. Thank you. Saw you hung up your admin boots. Hope everything's alright. All the best, Daicaregos (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Kenilworth

Hi, I know Kenilworth Castle well as I used to live in the area, and would be happy to look over the article and give my opinion on its structure. However I'm in the final stages of a major project at work for the last two weeks with at least another week or so to go, so any review work I do will have to wait until after that is completed. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've been thinking about this, and I think that a similar approach as used at Chateau Gaillard makes sense, with a history section followed by an overall layout section. However, I do think that there shoudl be one significant alteration, with a sort of "mini-layout" at the start of each historical period under discussion, that explains that changes that took place during that period. If you don't have that, then the history can become highly confusing (i.e. features never before discussed suddenly coming to prominence). If you need any more input then please don't hesitate to ask. Regards --Jackyd101 (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Posted on the Richard I page too, but wanted to make it more personal as well. Thanks especially for the links ... hope this was the right spot to put this. QuantumOfHistory (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Mary Rose at FAC

Since you have been an active commentator, reviewer or editor of the article Mary Rose, I'd like to announce that it's been nominated for featured article status. The nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary Rose/archive1. I would very much appreciate your comments, suggestions for improvement or support of the nomination.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Chateau-Gaillard

Hello there,

Just to let you know, in case you hadn't seen, that I have completed the GA review of Chateau-Gaillard (Talk:Château-Gaillard/GA1). There are only a few relatively minor issues that need fixing, but otherwise it looks good to me.

Regards, MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Castle

FAC later this week I see - well done again on a superb article, and I hope you're wearing a steel helmet to avoid pulling your hair out on the day! Parrot of Doom 21:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wednesday! Good grief. Thanks for the heads up, I would probably have missed that. I'll have to retreat to my fortress walled town fortified residence to withstand the onslaught. I suppose this is what I've been building up to, so it should be interesting. I wanted more of the associated pages to be of better quality, but at least Bodiam Castle (one of the two lead images) is an FA. If anyone watching this page is willing to help, a watchful eye would be greatly appreciated! Nev1 (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem mate. I just thought it was a good example of a Gatehouse and I also thought it would be fair to give Wales some representation as it is famous for its castles. But I aint too fussed in all fairness. Regards IJA (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Not bad, but you need to find a Gropecunt Castle :) Parrot of Doom 15:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with 85,000 although nothing can quite compare to Gropecunt Lane. Nev1 (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I very much enjoyed making my minor contributions leading up to your FA, and dealing with with the avalanche of front-page-day edits. It was a relatively quiet day at work. I light-heartedly hope my edits were, in the main, helpful. :) Congratulations again on your excellent work. And for whatever it is worth: thank you for doing it. - Sinneed 03:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help, a fresh pair of eyes was very helpful. Not just in keeping the prose fresh, but adeptly dealing with questions on the day which I got tired of long ago. I'm sure it was clear that I was getting tired of the same old questions. It may have been a standard day for you, but I'll be happy not to repeat the inquisition any time soon! Looking back at the mess the article was at the start of 2009, I am am proud of how far it's come. Nev1 (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

When I saw that it was going to be on the front page, I knew you were at risk of being buried in the onslaught... and was hopeful I could spend some time on it... I knew the workload was going to be great, from helping with front-page-day on a few other articles (usually on weekends, haha). The vandalism rate was actually rather low, and there were some useful changes too.- Sinneed 15:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

My impression was that the vandalism wasn't too bad, although the view count was decent; it felt like there was more when Warwick Castle was on the main page ages ago. Vandalism's easy to deal with, it was treading over the same ground about what is a castle etc that was tiring. That article was easily the most controversial I've heavily edited, and 24 hours on the front page of one of the most viewed websites in the world was always going to be a test. I wonder what it is about castles that seems to bring out the nationalist in people. Anyway, the article weathered the storm with no lasting ill effects and with a bit of copy editing it has improved. Nev1 (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

... for the nice welcome! --91.55.107.25 (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix

Looks like it was me who inadvertently changed 1974 to 1994 during a copyedit. Ah well, why couldn't it just have been fixed without all of the "needs to be written in a more scholarly manner", "poor quality sourcing", and written like an article in The Sun bollocks?

Yours, seriously pissed off. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to track down some footage I shot, only a week after the bomb, in the centre of Manchester. I don't know if I still have the rushes, and I'm not on speaking terms with the person who might, but if I can find them they're yours. Parrot of Doom 18:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks PoD. the article's about finished as far as I'm concerned, but an extra image or two would certainly be good. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

These kinds of article bring out the worst in people. Ceoil, someone who's has helped write numerous FAs, forgot all about WP:V; assertions that s/he was familiar with the sources didn't stand up because *gasp* s/he didn't bother to provide any supporting his/her point. It was a comedy of errors right from the start, except without the funny bits. I didn't even get the page number right when I first added the info, although from the name I gave to the citation I had the right page in mind. That the quality of the sources is being questioned is crap and demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the sources relevant to the incident. I think my sample survey of sources before Mr Stephen pointed us in the right direction demonstrates that there's not a lot out there, and that the article is using the best that's available. Criticising the sources marked a pretty sudden turn around by Ceoil who had previously been complimentary of the article, showing a remarkable amount of venom. Nev1 (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As you say, a comedy of errors, culminating in Ceoil fulminating at me for being a racist, and accusing me of having by some some mysterious means oversighted the comment he claimed proved my racism. I was not at all amused. Seems to be the pattern with all these republican-related articles though. You make some progress, some Irish twat comes along full of self-righteous indignation about some trivia or other, you have to leave the article alone for a while to let things cool down, and the cycle repeats until everyone is thoroughly pissed off with the pointlessness of it all. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The answer is to stick to things about which nobody has ever heard :) Elizabeth Canning was possibly one of the most notorious criminal cases in 18th-century England, but the article gets about 20 views a day! Parrot of Doom 18:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Brougham Castle

On March 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brougham Castle, 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, quick check ) 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Brougham Castle

Interesting- another Cumbria article (and, particularly, a rather academic but not recherché Cumbria article) is definitely a positive. I'll hopefully be doing some GAC reviewing myself in the near future, so I will certainly consider that one. J Milburn (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Archiving Talk:Richard I of England

Thanks for your !vote in the above discussion. I have since added a note to indicate some other features that I would like to add to the archving. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 18:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Witchcraft grammar question

Please take a look here. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Parliamentary constituencies in Hertfordshire/GA1

This article was sitting in the queue for a GA review for months. I did the review - and then found the nominator has gone on a long term break for family reasons, departing just 2 days ago. My bad timing. Anyway, my main concerns with the article relate to historical information, and you appear active in this area. Would you be willing to take a look? I'll leave it on hold for longer than usual and see what happens. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard I

I have posted this on the talk page but I have also repeated here for your convenience. You have won me over with you hard research and scholarly deductions! Summary: I think the best approach is as Nev 1 has suggested: i.e., to have a distinct chapter on it. I think this is probably the best model to follow. Nev1 has certainly done his "due diligence" on the subject, having read extensively the various sources. The other editors, Spike and the others have done so as well and are all to be commended. For what it is worth, I do think that Richard I, was at the very least, bixsexual, and, considering the treatment of his Queen, and the fact that we see no reports of his sexual exploits with woman as we do with his father or brother, he was probably homosexual. Taking all of this into consideration, and as it does seem to touch on his history, I do think it deserves mention in the way and manner Nev1 suggests. Mugginsx (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Civility

Do not call other users fools. You know better. Hipocrite (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Calling them as I see them. In my books suggesting a user name should be blocked without understanding the relevant guideline is foolish. Take your prattle elsewhere. Nev1 (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)