|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.|
Cathedral of Dolianova
- Ciao Amanda! thanks so much for your quick corrections. Just two notes: 1) you corrected "fake Columns" to "fake arcades", but what I meant was the Italian it:lesena, for which I didn't find a direct correspondence here so I invented; 2) you confirm "polycolumn" I invented is correct? Un bacio e a presto! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Louvre Mona Lisa Hall
Error in featured article
''"Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Sperry; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text "''
The text above apears in To Autumn and I don’t know how to put it right. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Ode to Autumn
Keats' or Keats's? The latter appears earlier in the lead and I have followed it at this, its second appearance. I prefer the s's form, which according to the style guides is the English form, with the s' as the American.
I agree about the article. It reads like a (very good) student essay rather than an encyclopaedia article – those endless regurgitations of learned literary critics! Still, it communicates the feel and the engineering of the poem, which is the main thing. – Tim riley (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
St Andrew's Cathedral: minor edits
Hello. Sorry for the confusion over the "minor edits". I hope they were minor – it was not my intention to change the meaning of the contents. Regarding US vs non-US spelling, I myself use non-US spelling. If I change spelling, I would tend to change US spelling to non-US spelling in an article about a non-US subject, particularly if it is about something in an English-speaking country. If there is inconsistency in a US article, I might change the non-US spellings to US ones, if I spot them.
Generally I try to flag more substantive changes in the "comments" box to appear on the "View history" page, and I tend to raise any very major edits on the "Discussion" page of the article in question, and I often don't make them until my comments have been there for a couple of days. However, I don't make many very major changes that affect the actual contents (as opposed to minor changes or re-arranging the contents).
May I ask why you are making such side-sweeping changes to To Autumn without discussion or consensus, removing material, and replacing references from scholarly works with those from Sparksnotes? Seriously, what is up with this edit? Especially for well-honed FAs, you know better than to just added stuff that might be verifiable and just sit on it. Please explain. –MuZemike 15:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
To Autumn listed for Featured Article review
I have listed To Autumn for Featured Article review due to significant instability issues and content disputes. Please read and comment at Wikipedia:Featured article review/To Autumn/archive1. Regards, –MuZemike 01:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Amandajm. Well, I guess I was dragged into this for having dared to fix a broken link (and one that was formally tagged as such on the talk page, mind you) along with a few spelling inconsistencies. I admire your obviously good-faith effort to improve this article. Nowhere is it written that once an article is labeled a Featured Article, its contents must be considered as carved in stone and beyond needing any improvement. While the editors, primarily Ottava Rima and to a lesser extent Kathyrncelestewright and maybe a few others, included much that is valuable, it is as clear to me as it is to you that some serious problems were allowed to remain after its having been promoted to Featured status. (And it is no slur on their contributions to assert the need for further improvements; one can always benefit from a second or third pair of eyes.) Now, while as I say I think you have done much good with your edits, there are one or two that could use further work (like that example I gave that you commented on). Also, you may have gone too far with that citation from SparkNotes. But maybe you can find a better reference there.
Anyhow, do you intend to pursue this further? If so, I will try to find time to read your edits and either comment on the article's talk page or make any further changes that strike me as called for. Otherwise, I certainly have no intention of fighting this battle alone. And, frankly, it irks me that it should have been turned into a battle. As I said, I believe your edits to have been made in good faith, and for the most part are improvements to the quality of the writing. Anyone disputing them should have challenged or even reverted them, but on a case-by-case basis, with explanation—not wholesale, as was done. And, as I think you pointed out, where are all the "disputes" that some others (like MuZemike, above) have been alluding to?
As for sources, I have easily available only one of the sources, and do not have the time to travel to libraries for the rest. Moreover, I never had any intention of making any major changes to this article, in large part because I do not have ready access to the above-mentioned sources. But if you intend to soldier on, I will be glad to help out to the extent I mentioned above. I may also fix that broken link again, though I have no inclination to do so if I find that it has been reverted to a broken status every few days. Regards, Alan W (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I have not seen any comments from you or anyone else, so I went ahead and acted upon what I wrote about on the talk page. I ended up doing more editing than I had originally intended, but it's probably for the best. In my opinion, at least, To Autumn is now far closer to what a Featured Article should be, and you can give yourself credit for most of the improvements. I may yet add a few touch-ups if the mood strikes me, but, hopefully, you, I, and anyone else who loves English Romantic poetry can now at least stand to look at it without wincing. I still think that Ottava Rima and a few others deserve credit for all that they did, as far as they went; but, obviously, that was not far enough with respect to conforming to the standards of FAs, especially in the writing, and, as you pointed out, a few other things. (I don't blame them, I blame the reviewers; something is clearly lacking in the FA review process on the English Wikipedia.) Regards, Alan W (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Leonardo and Freud
I've responded to your note at Talk:Leonardo da Vinci, A Memory of His Childhood. I would improve the article myself, but I'm really short on time what with school and all. Cheers, Lithoderm 04:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)