User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Qwest Field

Thank you for copy editing that section and giving your 2 cents at the FAC. I almost asked you specifically to go over it after the peer review was so light (I thought the "with company" in your caption awhile back was smooth). I know you don't have much time to spend on it, but I have replied to your comments.Cptnono (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Credo Reference

Hi Brian, thought you might be interested in this. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Julian. I have applied & added my name - number 87 I think. Brianboulton (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
EC? You aren't on the list. Yomanganitalk 23:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
God knows what happened there. I've squeezed in at 97 (I hope) - thanks for the warning.

Mahler image

I cropped and slightly rotated it and uploaded it again. I find that if I upload a new version of an image it helps to resize the image by even 1 pixel - this forces the software to redraw the image and you can see the new version. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that! (I seem to remember you giving similar advice before – Ah, well...) Brianboulton (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Glad to help, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final peer review

In case you missed my comment above... Thank you again for the rest of your comments in this article's peer review. I've finally gotten enough time to address them all (or ask a follow up question). Sorry that I was not able to get through them sooner than now. This week has been full for me at work and home so I didn't have much time. At your earliest convenience, please take a look at my followup comments/questions. --SkotyWATC 02:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your earlier note. I have left a final comment on the PR page. Brianboulton (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review

Hi Brianboulton, I don't know whether you remember your peer review for the article Dhaka Residential Model College. However, after that so many days have passed and during this time I have significantly contributed to the article with a view to being a Good Article. The article has been also undergone authentic copy-edit. Recently I have listed the article at Peer Review in order to be perceived of the problems that might impede the article to be a GA. That's why I would like to request you to review the article once more. I hope you will help the article to be a GA. Please inform your opinion as soon as possible. Thank you. -- Tanweer (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I do remember reviewing this, and have just looked again at my review comments. I will certainly look at the article again, but this may not be for several days, as there is a PR backlog and also I am currently very busy researching for a new article which is absorbing most of my time. Brianboulton (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, you can do the review whenever you wish. Looking forward for that. -- Tanweer (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi Brianboulton, as I won't be giving enough time on Wikipedia from the next month due to my exam, I need the peer review of the article DRMC very recently. If you don't have enough time for the PR, I have to request another reviewer to do that. Will I proceed? -- Tanweer (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I won't be able to do it before the weekend. If that's not quick enough for you, by all means find another reviewer. Brianboulton (talk) 11:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

FootballBarnstar.png Football (soccer) barnstar
For your excellent review work with the peer review of 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final, I award you this barnstar. Thank you for your help! SkotyWATC 08:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow! Football, me? What an honour! Brianboulton (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Well it was definitely well deserved. If it's not too much trouble, I'd appreciate it if you could keep an eye on the article as it goes through the rest of peer review and FA review and provide more of your thoughtful feedback when you can. Also, I definitely think the article is still in need of another thorough copyedit from top to bottom. For example, I recently rewrote the lead, and while I think it's much improved, I think it's obvious that I'm no master of the english language. :) Can you recommend any talented copyeditors you've worked with in the past that could help with this? Thanks again for all of your help. It's appreciated. --SkotyWATC 17:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


I sent you an e-mail! OboeCrack (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pics. I'll check them out. Brianboulton (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Paramount Television Network

Hi Brian,

Thanks so much for your review of Paramount Television Network. I greatly appreciate your feedback and your thorough review. I've made nearly all of your suggested changes, but did ask for some clarification on the peer review page. Thanks again for your efforts. They really helped me. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A few more comments added. Brianboulton (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Gustav Mahler

I have already been reading this aritcle with some interest and have been impressed with your progress so far. I am not as detail-oriented as you are but will attempt to read more carefully and be glad to give suggestions. Jonyungk (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Left a few comments on the talk page. Jonyungk (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for this feedback, the first of any substance I have had on the revised article. The biography part clearly needs a lot of polishing, so please keep the comments coming. I may not get to deal with them immediately as at the moment I am embroiled with the Music section, which is proving problematic (so much to read, so many views to synthesise). As well as detailed prose comments I would value any observations as to length, comprehensiveness, neutrality, image selection, etc. Most grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
You're very welcome—glad I can help. No problem on not getting to my comments right away—that gives me time to read through the article multiple times and add more comments to what is already there. So far the prose is a little rough compared to your usual, but not unduly so, and the biography section on the whole seems thoroughly comprehensive. Jonyungk (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
BTW, the section on compositions looks fine. One question, though. Is "Sadie" Stanley Sadie? You use only his last name the one time you mention him, so you might want to introduce him. Jonyungk (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
There are other, similar issues to be sorted out. I'm revising the draft at the moment, and will then do the final polishing. Your comments have been very helpful; mostly I have taken up your suggestions. I will leave some explanatory notes on the talkpage when I am through revising. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Saw your explanatory notes on the talk page, which satisfy all my concerns. Thanks for addressing them, and glad they were of help. Jonyungk (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(out) The article is looking great. What are your current plans for PR or FAC? Jonyungk (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

PR tomorrow, probably. I'm trying to get the PR backlog down before nomming it. I'll give you a call when it goes there. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added my two penn'orth to the peer review. I send you this, which I didn't dare leave in those heil'gen Hallen, from The Bluffer's Guide to Music (1966): "Mahler has recently become almost too fashionable but there is still plenty to talk about. Latch on to an obscure and fleeting theme in the middle of the 8th and say it reminds you of 'Pop goes the weasel' and few will care to argue. Be careful, however, that you are not talking to Deryck Cooke, William Mann, Jack Diether or Neville Cardus—who will." - Tim riley (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Image/soundfile queries

I am happy to help, although that might start only a few days later (I am away from the computer that lets me search PD-US Google books). There are high-resolution photos of Alma here, but they lack the information necessary to determine if they are in the public domain. It is a bit disturbing: a casual search on Google images seemingly hints Alma Mahler is so notorious for her lifestyle that she has sex dolls made in her image...

On the sound files, since Mahler died in 1911, his compositions are copyrighted until the end of 1981, well before the URAA agreement (we can ignore the more complicated older audio copyright US laws if these performances were first published after 1 March 1989). So anyone can freely perform his works; however, their performances are copyrighted to them and their conductor (if any). Of the two links you gave, Mahler Symphony 5 seems safe if we believe the uploader to be the Symphony's representative. However, note that the PSO does have their own website at (with several MP3 of Mahler's works), and they state "You are welcome to download these selected MP3 files of the Peabody Symphony Orchestra recorded live in concert for your own personal enjoyment, however, copying or redistributing these files without prior written permission is strictly prohibited." It might seem probable that the uploader to the Archive might not be the PSO after all... It would be preferable to contact the PSO to get the permission and submit it through OTRS.

I have grave doubts over Eric Pancer's upload; claiming himself as the artist/composer and "Sony MZ-N1 Minidisc Recorder" as the source, it seems more likely he recorded the performance, and by uploading it for distribution, violated the copyrights of the University Symphony Orchestra, University Chorus, Motet Choir, Soprano Kimberly Jones, Stacy Eckert, and Barbara Schubert.

You can get software to convert MP3 to OGG (; I am inexperienced with them so I am of no help recommending which or how to operate one... Jappalang (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this prompt and infoirmative reply. The Mahler article is taking place only slowly, so there is no immediate hurry for further information on Alma, though if you can search PD-US Google books in your own time, it will be interesting to see if definitive source information can be provided. As to the soundfiles, I note your comments and will tread warily. Brianboulton (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I found one photo of Alma that should qualify for PD-1923 (hence, storage on Wikipedia) at the very least (she faces to the left in this one). Plate 5 of Richard Specht's Gustav Mahler (1913); unlike the other photos in his book, he did not list the photographer for this, so it could qualify for {{Anonymous-EU}} (possible storage on Commons) as well. I am in the process of acquiring a new graphic editing software, so I cannot help to crop and upload this image; it should take a few days, although any of your talk page stalkers can do the deed as well (heh). Jappalang (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the Google books link doesn't take me to Plate 5, so I can't see the Alma portrait. I suppose I don't have the right software. If your new graphic editing software will allow you in due course to upload it, I'd be grateful for that, also if possible for a better lead photograph than the callow Gustav at present shown. Maddeningly, I have a copy of Sprecht's book in its 1922 edition, but that doesn't include any illustrations!!! Brianboulton (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
It is not your software (Google Books allows access dependent on the service provider). Anyway, look what I dug up just from the net (and they were in Sprecht's book). They are only PD-1923 and so are here on Wikipedia.
They should suffice since they would be better quality than what I can get from Google Books (which downsizes the scan quality when converting to PDF), although the latter could provide a larger size image. I still have other images, but am waiting for my image software to arrive. Jappalang (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
This is Alma Mahler's photo in Specht's 1913 book. Jappalang (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
These are great, thanks for your efforts. I'll post the grumpy old man without delay. As to Alma, am I allowed to crop & upload this to Wikipedia without reference to the PhotoDirect people? Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, I see you have marked the 1892 Bieber image as "not PD in the US". Is there any way other than fair use rationale (which wouldn't be justified) that this image can be licensed? Brianboulton (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
For Alma, you can crop and upload but you must still state PhotoDirect as the source of the image (and state that the image was long ago published in Specht who did not state the author). Although I can get Google Book's copy in full (without the watermark), PhotoDirect's image is sharper and slightly larger on the whole. As for my marking of the Bieber images as non-URAA compliant, that is my mistake (URAA restorations do not apply to pre-1923 publishing); I have undone them. However, if those turn up to be Emil's works rather than Leonard's, then they would not be PD-old in their country of origin (hence necessitating a move to Wikipedia but let us not ponder that yet). Jappalang (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if it's just my eye, but Gustav seems to get grumpier and grumpier as each new image is added. At the moment I prefer the first of the three, but thanks all the same. Brianboulton (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Brian, I have gone through the images in Mahler and believe them to be compliant with the project(s)' policies and guidelines. Austria permits freedom of panorama, so photos of most permanent installations in publicly accessible places are okay. I had to put in a request to rename the Wagner photo though—wrong year! Jappalang (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. When the article goes to FAC I may ask you to repeat the information re compliance there. I'm keeping it on PR for a while, though. Brianboulton (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Quehanna Wild Area

Quehanna Stumps 2.jpg <font=3> Thanks again for your kind words, detailed review, and support. Quehanna Wild Area is now a featured article! Auntieruth55 (talk) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Quehanna Wild Area map.png
I never doubted it for a moment. Congratulations. Brianboulton (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team FAC

Can you strike resolved issues at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/archive2.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


Are you doing Mahler? Let me know when you are ready for me to give the text a once over if so.

Thanks for the election support, the article passed. I'll have Gough Whitlam at PR in maybe 2 or 3 days. The most radical PM Australia has ever had, so the allegation of only conservatives won't fly here! No chance of a TFA on this one, it was one in 2004 and was later demoted.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Gough got fired for incompetence (or so they say); I'll be most interested in your take on him. Hope there'll be plenty about Jim Cairns - now there's a radical for you. Being an upside down country, Australia calls its Conservative party "liberals", which is a mite confusing. Talking of conservatives, I'm glad Dief Mark II made it (Bayern Munich 2 Rest of Canada 0)
Yes, I'm doing Gustav Mahler, but it's slow work - a great deal to read and synthesize. I have drafted the biographical parts of the article, and would be happy if you can add comments to the talk page. User:Jonyungk has offered to do the same. I'm working on the music and reception history parts at the moment. When I'm done drafting, the whole thing will probably be shaken up and put into better order. I'm not anticipating a proper PR for another couple of weeks, and FAC is still a very distant prospect. Any feedback or suggestions welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Not a problem. I'll expand on Cairns, both the lost leadership race to Whitlam and the pathos of loans and Eurasian women. I am up to 1975, but am reviewing my sources before moving ahead again. My impression of Whitlam is that he screwed up, and has spent the last 35 years trying to get people to focus on the dismissal, not what went on in the government. He seems to have been fairly successful at that, I think he's a national icon.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
So might I be when I'm 97. Brianboulton (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Just get the Queen to fire you personally and you'll be in clover.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Thanks to peer reviewers

Thanks for the notice and glad things are working out at PR. I am trying to help out more, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and good luck with Gustav. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

thank you gift!

Apple I Computer.jpg To show appreciation of your Peer Review which helped get List of Smithsonian museums to featured article status, I award you this Apple I i stole from the Smithsonian to better facilitate future Peer Reviews!--Found5dollar (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations on the FL listing. I think my pennyworth was slight, but it is gracious of you to recognise it, even by means of presentation of stolen goods. Brianboulton (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Manual sizing of images

Wikipedia allows users to set image sizing in their settings. This helps both bandwidth constrained people who can make image smaller and users with disabilities who can set images larger. Using manual sizing on images prevents this. Therefore the image use guidelines say not to use manual sizing. Those who want to see an image larger and in more detail can click through it. Please consider yourself informed. Yworo (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Please consider yourself informed – that may have been OK in the Victorian schoolroom, but it is not the way to address your fellow-editors here. The following is the full text of the MOS guideline to which I assume you are referring:-
  • The thumbnail option may be used ("thumb"), or another size may be fixed. The default thumbnail width is 220 pixels; users can adjust this in their preferences. An option such as "|300px|" resizes the image to the specified width in pixels, and "upright=1.2" (or "|frameless|upright=1.2" for plain pictures) resizes an image to approximately the given multiple of a user's preferred width. An image should generally be no more than 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels ("upright=1.8") wide, so it can be comfortably displayed next to the text on the smallest monitors in common use; an image can be wider if it uses the "center" or "none" options to stand alone. The Wide image and Tall image templates display images that would otherwise be unreasonably wide or tall. Examples where adjusting the size may be appropriate include, but are not limited to, the following:
    • Lead images, which should usually be no wider than "300px" ("upright=1.35").
    • Images in which detail is relatively unimportant (for example, a national flag), and which may need smaller sizes than usual.
    • Images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart), and which may need larger sizes than usual.
    • Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image.
Emphasis in the above wording added by me. Note that the guideline does not say what you say it says; there is considerable leeway in fixing the size of images, a matter which has been widely discussed at FAC and elsewhere. I am prepared to discuss the issue with regard to specific images on the Mahler article, but please don't try to give your interpretation of this guideline the force of law, and do try to keep a civil tongue in your head. Brianboulton (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You're reading the MoS. Take a look at the image use policy to which I referred. To wit:

  • "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so: some users have small screens or need to configure their systems to display large text; "forced" large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult. In addition, forcing a "larger" image size at say 260px will actually make it smaller for those with a larger size set as preference."

Cheers, Yworo (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

2008 Giro d'Italia Peer review

Thanks so much for your review. I've addressed your comments so far. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer review: Adrian Boult

I know you're up to your elbows in Mahler at the moment, but if you have a few minutes to spare betweenwhiles I'd be grateful for your comments. (Sir Adrian did his bit to pioneer Mahler in Britain, if that's the slightest inducement.) Shall wholly understand if you can't find the time, naturally. - Tim riley (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Give me 24 hours. I should have finished the first draft of Gustav by then, and a short break from him will be in order. Boult was still conducting when I started going to concerts, though I don't think I ever saw him. Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Bless you! No rush. Any unskilled labour needed on Mahler, just say the word. - Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I've done the first bit of Boult. As to Mahler, I hope to have him ready for a formal peer review in about a week, so perhaps save your ammo for then? (posted 5 April but forgot to sign) Brianboulton (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
PR now finished - with warmest thanks for your thorough and hugely helpful comments. (Irrelevant observation: I am old enough to have seen Boult conduct The Planets in 1971, which I feel a link with the past.) I await the call of the schönen Trompeten in due course for the Mahler article. - Tim riley (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Mahler list PR

Hi Brian, I notice you closed the PR today, but I haven't noticed you fix the points I raised. I just want to check that you didn't miss them.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have by no means forgotten them, and I'm sorry I didn't acknowledge your comments. I have been so occupied with putting the main article together that a few things have slipped. Anyhow, things are coming to the boil; the biographical article itself will soon be at PR, before which I will have dealt with all outstanding points from the list. I hope you'll have time to read the main article, too. Brianboulton (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Please prompt me when it goes up.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Portrait of a woman - Peer review

Thanks you for looking at this, your comments were very helpful. I got much more from the PR than I had expected, and there is no need to revisit. I'll close the PR: I have more to add once I find copies of some sources I'm trying to track down and that could take a while. Thanks again for your help. Ceoil (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

War of the Bavarian Succession at FAC

Brian, at the FAC process for the War of the Bavarian Succession, 2 reviewers don't like my sources. Would you take a look and give me an objective opinion on this? I'm of the opinion that old doesn't mean useless and the judiciously applied, older sources may provide us with some fascinating details that otherwise are lost in the newer discussions. They are also arguing about my archaic style (for example, I used the phrase "Imperial dignities" and they didn't like that juxtaposed against the phrase "rookie", which was Maria Theresa's description). I could use another perspective outside the Military history project, because they liked the article (with tweaks and adjustments). Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I will look at this as soon as possible. It may be a day or two because I am under quite a bit of pressure to do a number of things quickly. As someone without much knowledge of military history I am not sure that my views on sources will be particularly useful, but I'll do my best. Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
This is why I asked you. I was thinking about who would be impartial on this. I'm going to the library tonight (I hope, if I can get a ride), and will reborrow a book I used, and add some stuff. :) Thanks for taking a look. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No need to hurry

I won't be nomming Whitlam for a few weeks, because I decided to have Ashford v Thornton jump the queue. It was just such a fun article to write that I just wanted to get it to FAC right away.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

OK I'll deal with Whitlam in fits and starts, as time allows. I can't promise I'll get to Ashford v Thornton very soon, though it looks intriguing. Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
No particular hurry on either. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Quite honestly, I don't know how you do it, writing so much on so many different subjects. You must be a very fluent writer: when I write a paragraph I look at it for ten minutes, alter it, than look at it again before altering it back to what it was. Then I scrap it and start again. It's a wonder I ever finish an article. You must reveal your secret some time. Brianboulton (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
There's no secret. I write a sentence, cite, then another sentence, cite it, etc. Then go back and clean up the small stuff. I think it is a combination of good English teachers back in the day and an awful lot of reading. However you do it, your writing is excellent as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Keith Miller in the 1946-47 Australian cricket season

Hi Brian. Can I take up your offer of an informal pre-FAC glance over cricket article for jargon/match-description style. The article was previously copyedited by Ling Nut who was the GAN reviewer. Many thanks again. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and get to it, but there is a big backlog building up at PR that I need to help with first, so expect a short delay. Brianboulton (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review - Thanks


I just wanted to thank you for completing the peer review that I requested for Ghost stations of the Paris Métro. I will address the issues you raised on that page later today and note my progress there. --Aka042 (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

FA review of South Jordan, Utah

Thank You for your review of the article. I've always had a problem with abstracts and summaries, so thank you for the help you've given in straightening up the article's lead. I think I've addressed all of your concerns, but I'm going to look at the lead again later today to make sure it makes sense to me after some time away.

You didn't ruin my happy week, my wife waking me up this morning did that... BTW, you have spelled your first name wrong. Typical English. My full name is Bryan Glyndwr :) Bgwhite (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Blame my mum and dad for that. Brianboulton (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the lead again and decided to sort of switch around paragraphs. The geographical setting is lead paragraph because I fell that the geography has more "pop". Please take a look and offer any suggestions. Oh... I blame my parents for alot of things too... even if they don't deserve it. Bgwhite (talk) 06:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Would "component" be a better word than "member" in the first senetnce? Also, in the infobox, is the map (showing South Jordan in red) an outline of Salt Lake City metropoltan area? It would help if it were labelled. I am off-wiki today but will return to the article tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 07:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Changed to "component". The map shows an outline of Salt Lake County. Relabled the map "Location of South Jordan in Salt Lake County, Utah" Bgwhite (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Boy, talk about depressing. All those edits made me depressed. There is a reason I'm in math and computers, but agh. I think I made every change you requested. I also went through the 20th-century section thinking about the comments you made on the previous sections... I made several of changes. Only if you have the time, I would really appreciate it if you go through the Twentieth century section. I'd like to see how I did and and what I missed. Bgwhite (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Gustav Mahler peer review

I read the article and found it to flow very well. I made a number of copyedits and several comments on the article, mostly providing translations or trying to be consistent with other article translations or within the Mahler article. Let me know if you have more questions or need further comment, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)