User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 80

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

FAC reviews

Hi Brian, the list of requests at the top of WT:FAC is getting a bit long so I was wondering if you'd have time to look at SRs for Canis Major, Frédéric Chopin, and Battle of Öland. I've asked Nikki if she'd mind taking the others in the list to spread the load...! Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll do what I can. Time limited today, but perhaps tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

Bugles at Gresham's

I was a bit sorry to see the mention of the scene in Tony Britten's film being cut, though I take your point that the film alone is not a sufficient citation for this. I've had a look, and found the bugle calls credited - both to the Gresham's players, and to the opera - in this page from the film's promotional website. Will this be enough of a citation to reinstate the mention? Alfietucker (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have raised the lack of sourcing with you first – apologies. The problem is that this information is a little tangential to the main subject; furthermore, promotional websites do not pass FAC's standards of quality and reliability. However, if you can find a RS to support the statement, it could be restored to the footnote. As a general note, I am using the rain outside as an opportunity to go through the article, and I'll send you a full report on changes made and other suggestions when I'm finished. Give me an hour. Obviously, if you're unhappy with any of my changes, we will discuss them – nothing is final yet. Brianboulton (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
No need for an apology - I quite understood why you decided to cut it. I'll have a look to see if I can find a RS for this, but as you say it's fairly tangential (though I think it rather nice that Tony B evidently picked up on the anecdote for that scene) so it's more an interesting note rather than anything essential. Look forward to your comments. All best, Alfietucker (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

John Plagis

Hi Brian, I hope you are well. Just a note to let you know I've now got John Plagis at FAC here. Plagis was the top-scoring flying ace of WWII for both Rhodesia and his ancestral home Greece. As always your thoughts would be very much appreciated if you have the time. Cheers, —Cliftonian (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Good to hear from you. I'll happily look at Plagis, but I have two or three other reviews promised, so it may be a few days before I can oblige. Hope that's OK (I may shortly be asking you for a similar favour). Brianboulton (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
No rush at all, as you are probably aware I have other commitments at the moment too. Of course let me know when I can help and I will do so. baie dankie —Cliftonian (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Reply re Noye's Fludde

I've replied to the points you've raised on my talk page, and have gone ahead on edits we've agreed on (though let me know if you feel strongly about my having cut out mention of Orford villagers' resistance). I've tinkered a good deal with the last footnote in particular and hope it reads more clearly - plus there's wikilinks to help readers lost by mention of 12-tone rows etc.

All best, Alfietucker (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave the floor to you while you're working

Are you still working through points raised by PR of Noye's Fludde? If so, I'm happy to leave the floor to you while you're doing so. I've just questioned how pertinent it is to the article that the plays have survived into the 21st century, since we're talking about a 20th century opera: but that's a relatively small point. All best, Alfietucker (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

A few hours have passed, and as I'm waiting for my lunch to cook I thought I might carry on with going through Wehwalt's points. There are a few points Tim has raised as well which I hesitated to "fix", so maybe you could have a look at those as well as the issue about Lucifer etc. Hope all is well. Alfietucker (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I've a couple of points to add to Tim's review (which got lost via an edit conflict)). I'll add those now, & look at Wehwalt's at the same time. I think it's more pertinent to know that the Chester plays are still extant, than to know that they were when BB wrote te oPera, so I prefer the prsent wording to stand. Brianboulton (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure I understand the logic re the survival into the 21st century, and it's possible others may raise this issue. But unless they do so, I'm happy to leave this.
I've now finished going through Wehwalt's feedback, and there are one or two points raised there which I've not acted on but left for you to decide/comment on. Alfietucker (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hay

Thank you for the source review. I did have one question on it, I don't see the discrepancy between the 2 footnotes. Thanks for all your patient help with this one.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Affair

Nice to see that affair on the Main page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks Brian!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Ouch - I had forgotten all about thia. I hope there are no hidden howlers. Brianboulton (talk) 08:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Well done also from me. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Ditto: and a nicely quiet start to the day for it: by this time on the day Tranby Croft had been up there, it had been vandalised nine times. May your peaceful and vandal-free day continue! - SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

My policy on TFA days is never to look until the day is over, and then to quietly clean up as necessary – the vandal-watchers will have done most of the work for me. That way I avoid the frustration and teeth-gnashing that comes with having to deal with idiots, malevolent or otherwise. Brianboulton (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Brilliant work, so hard to bring together all those different strands. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
For your continued efforts and inevitable success on Noye's Fludde which I'm sure will breeze through FAC. On behalf of the community, thank you! Cassiantotalk 18:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, many thanks for the honour – awarded a trifle prematurely in this case (Noye's Fludde not yet nominated at FAC). Brianboulton (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear, mea culpa. I saw on my watch list that Ian Rose had "Closed/Promoted" John Hay, and seeing as I have only reviewed two articles recently, I got this mixed up with your PR. Oh well, amended for now, updated in due course. Cassiantotalk 20:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm honoured to be on the working end of the confusion, as Brian, unlike me, values quality over quantity.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, the two are not mutualy exclusive. Judah P. Benjamin (10500 words) and Babe Ruth (145000) are among the best articles in the encyclopaedia. I go for smaller subjects. Brianboulton (talk) 08:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bread-Winners

(new thread) I have moved The Bread-Winners on to FAC with Hay promoted. There was one comment of yours I did not understand, "Other cases of literary past (Lorenzo Sears, who wrote 100 years ago, can safely be regarded as in the past)".--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I meant that with contemporary or recent writers it is more conventional to use the literary present tense ("Smith says, "Brown observes"), although with long-dead commentators the past tense is more appropriate. I will check out the FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
My thought is to make life easy on myself in future and throw everything possible into the past tense. Saves checking the obituaries.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Could you perchance take care of the source and image reviews? They should not be arduous. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) All now sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Fluorine spotchecking

The current fluorine FAC could do with your help. You see, it's my first FAC and Ian Rose has asked for a source spotcheck to verify that nothing is plagiarised. Are you ready? (If not, I need more editors to do the same.) Parcly Taxel 23:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The article has multiple supports at FAC. Have you asked if one of these editors would be prepared to spotcheck? My own time is very limited at the moment and I don't think I can help, but good luck with your first featured article. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Importuning

To all and sundry, near and far: Jules Massenet, the second greatest composer born in 1842, is now at FAC. If you have time and inclination to look in, it will be esteemed a favour. Tim riley talk 21:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll be honoured to do so, but bear in mind that I will have very limited online access for the next few days, so my comments may be a while in coming. Brianboulton (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

And

After a long post-PR gap when I dozed off, SchroCat has kick-started John Gielgud who is now also at FAC. Pray look in if you can. Tim riley talk 22:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I am delighted to see Sir J. emerging from the shadows. Previous comment re online access applies. Brianboulton (talk) 08:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

And there's more...

Can I also add George Formby onto your very long list of reviews? There is no rush on this, and if you are swamped with other reviews (and intermittent access), please don't feel obliged to pay a visit: you have already spent a considerable amount of valuable time and effort on this, and we appreciate that you spread yourselves thinly already. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I will certainly add George to my list – I remember the article with recent pleasure. Incidentally, you didn't complete the FAC nom procedure by manually adding the article to the FAC page. Shame on you; I have added it, to spare your blushes. My, isn't the King's Cross crowd well represented on the FAC page at the moment! As I am away from home until Saturday, with only fleeting internet access, I won't be able to review it until Sunday or Monday but I'm sure it will keep. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Oops – how embarrassing! (And as I'd gone through the process correctly with Gielgud 24 hours earlier, I really do have no excuse!) Thank you for that, and for your continued interest in this article. We're not doing a bad job of flooding FAC at the moment – and I have to return the favour on a few of them in the next day or two. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Wehwalt the centurion.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wehwalt the centurion.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Bondfield

Autobiography Chapter I
  • her father's activities as a member of the Chard Political Union pp. 13–14
  • and the Anti-Corn Law League p. 14
  • The Stringfellow Flying Machine pp. 14–15
  • The Stradlings pp. 16–17
  • Her parents' eleven children pp. 18–19
  • Her early life (incl trip to Iolanthe –"either a little Liberal or else a little Conservative") pp. 19–24
  • First job (Brighton) pp. 24–26


Elections 1926–35

Used Craig (1969) as suggested. All results are on p. 263

1926 1929 1931 1935
Electors 39,460 50,578 52,277 55,755
Turnout 82.9 80.2 84.9 81.3
Votes for Bondfield 18,866 20,057 18,393 21,463
Votes for Conservative 9,839 12,952 25,999 23,842
Votes for Liberal 4,000 6,790 – –
Votes for Communist – 744 – –
% Bondfield 57.7 49.6 41.4 47.4
%Tory 30.1 31.9 58.6 52.6
%Liberal 12.2 16.7 – –
%Bolshie – 1.8 – –
Majority 9,027 7,105 7,606 2,379

Over to you. Tim riley talk 11:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful stuff, for which many, many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

FAC success

Our work has been promoted! (Please excuse excitement - it's my first time!) Alfietucker (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

...and surely not your last! Thanks for managing the FAC itself with such aplomb – all I had to do was register thanks to all and sundry. Thanks, too, for making this a very worthwhile collaborative effort. Brianboulton (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
My pleasure - and thank you for being such a good colleague through the process of actual writing. Alfietucker (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Congrats to the pair of you: a fine article and worthy of the gold star! Thank you both for an excellent piece of work. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

My congrats also! - I was late to a review, explained here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2014

Pierce

Looks like The Bread-Winners is safely promoted and except for one day, will remain obscure hereafter. A coin will fill that slot next, and I am still considering which to offer. I do have Franklin Pierce, the nogoodnick who fired Mr. Peale, at PR, a joint project with Designate, if you have time to look at it. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I will certainly look at Pierce, though 10,000+ words suggests instalments. Eland rates him "bad", so he must have had something going for him. In fact, Eland sums him up memorably: "...the first of many charismatic presidents who weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer – for example, Warren G.Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush – all of whom except Harding were failures. Pierce followed the general trend." I can't wait. Brianboulton (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Handsome but stupid, rather like Kennedy in that regard. He's now at FAC. Dare I mention that I have left William H. Seward at Peer Review? He is perhaps best known for his folly, but he did quite a bit more than that. There is no hurry whatsoever. He's waited 142 years, he can wait a while longer.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Caesar Hull

Hi Brian, I hope you are well. Following the success of the Plagis article, I've nominated an article on a similar subject, Caesar Hull, for FAC here. As always your expert opinion would be very welcome if you have the time. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

Bondfield/Woolwich

  • Woolwich LCC Nov 1911: No – as it was a by-election caused by the resignation of Hastings Jay there was only one candidate per party, and the Lab candidate was W S Sanders. (ref: "Woolwich L.C.C. By-Election – Polling", The Times, 18 November 1911, p. 6)
  • Woolwich LCC March 1913: Both Sanders and Bondfield were Labour candidates:
    • W J Squires (Municipal Reform party) – 8,378
    • H K Wood (Kingsley Wood, I think – also MR party) – 8,300
    • W S Sanders (Lab) – 7,618
    • Miss M Bondfield (Lab) – 7,598
(ref: "London County Council Election", The Times, 7 March 1913, p. 10)

C-Taylor book

The Black Mahler not available yet, will try again 2.26.111.238 (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Margaret Bondfield, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ben Turner. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Terra Nova Expedition members (redux)

Hi Brian. It has taken me a while to get back to the Terra Nova Expedition members question I asked you back in June. Many thanks for helping out with that. Would you possibly be able to help out with a couple of other questions I had? One of them concerns 'Edward William Nelson'. In the Terra Nova Expedition article there was no link, presumably because Edward William Nelson is the wrong person. But I then discovered Edward W Nelson (though Edward W. Nelson redirects to a disambiguation page). I've added a link for 'Edward W Nelson' to the Terra Nova Expedition article, but I'm not sure whether the middle name is in fact 'William' or not - would you be able to shed any light on that? The other question I had was about the Bulgarian (some sources say Russian?) dog driver, Dimitri Gerov. The Terra Nova Expedition article has the spelling Gerov in two places and the spelling Gerof in another place. I've also seen the spelling Geroff used. Which should be used in the article, do you think? The other somewhat confusing point is that the article refers to him as just 'Dimitri' in several places (i.e. using his first name instead of his surname?) and also the spelling 'Dmitri' once. I've seen several sources do this and was wondering if this is some naming convention or something here? (The whole thing with Meares going to get dogs and ponies and coming back with a Russian groom and a Bulgarian dog driver is fascinating). One more question I had was about the number of people that formed the shore party (i.e. not staying on the ship). I've seen the numbers 32, 33 and 34 in various places (this includes the Northern Party led by Campbell). Is there a definitive number, or did the number vary as people arrived and left on the ship as it came back during the time there were there? One final thing I noticed - Bernard Day (a redlink here) is on the French Wikipedia fr:Bernard Day. Do you think there is enough for an article here? Carcharoth (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Nelson is entered as Edward W. Nelson in the list of expedition members per Scott's Last Expedition and elsewhere. I have seen nothing that provides his middle name.
  • In the version of the Terra Nova Expedition that was featured there was only one mention of the name "Gerov". The other mention, and "Gerof", have been added later. Either is probably correct, but obviously there needs to be consistency. "Gerov" is the version used in Scott's Last Expedition.
  • Most books refer to him as "Dimitri" rather than "Gerov", and I imagine this does indeed reflect a naming convention, though I can't be sure. The name is spelt in different ways, e.g. Dimitri or Demetri; I've never seen it as "Dmitri" (added by another hand). Obviously, again the article should give consistent spellings.
  • Scott's Last Expedition lists 33 shore party members, as does Elspeth Huxley. Ranulph Fiennes lists 34, but he wrongly includes Thomas Hodgson from the Discovery expedition. I think the number 33 may be taken as definitive.
  • Bernard Day is worth at least a stub. It may be necessary to hunt out certain details, e.g. birth and death dates, but most of the books have information on him – he was an important member of the expedition.

The article has been attended to by many hands since my last serious involvement with it. I see that it contains uncited information.I have removed the recently added lead photograph for reasons stated on the article's talk page. Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I managed to completely miss the issue with the lead image! All the instances of Dimitri Gerov have been regularised to that or just Dimitri (I was unsure whether it was necessary to state that Dimitri in this case refers to Gerov). I removed 'William' as Nelson's middle name. May get to Day at some point.

About the number in the shore party, the question arose when I was wondering if it was possible to identify all those in this picture (S0004409 from the RGS, there is a larger online version at the SPRI). The six people in the Northern Party are not there, nor is the cook Clissold or the photographer Ponting. But there are 23 people there, so if you go by the number 33, and take eight off, that still leaves 25 people instead of the 23 there (though I think I have now explained this discrepancy, see below). I was also trying to identify the people in that photo (primarily Scott, but others as well). Identifying people in various states of beard growth and in Arctic clothing is not easy! The source I was using for the shore party is the list here. That gives 34, but includes Hooper and Brewster who are not in the list of 32 I found somewhere else (this site, though I've lost the link, helpfully had individual face portraits for all 32 that they listed). Another source is the list here (Antarctic Heritage Trust), which lists 33 and helpfully indicates that Archer and Williamson were there for the 1912 winter only. That almost certainly explains the discrepancy I was worried about above (why the shore party group photo from October 1911 appears to have two missing). That list of 33 from the NZAHT site also does not include Brewster, who I presume the other site included in error (he is mentioned I think in reports of some of the dinners held before the expedition sailed, and presumably didn't actually sail on the expedition). As you say, the mention of Hodgson by Fiennes is an error (somewhat strange, though). Additionally, some originally in the ship's complement were, I think, transferred to the shore party (Bowers is one example of that). So in conclusion, would be it be more accurate to say that those that were still ashore when Terra Nova departed before the 1911 winter numbered 31? Six in the Northern Party and 25 at Cape Evans? When Terra Nova returned, she took some of the shore party away with her and left two extra men (Archer and Williamson). Then, after the 1912 winter, Terra Nova returned again (the exact details of where Terra Nova sailed and when is something that I hope is in the article on the ship, or will be added at some point) and everyone departed on the ship at that point. Well, everyone except the five that reached the South Pole, of course.

The NZAHT site does include more information on Gerov, using the spellings Gerof and the full name 'Demetri Semenovich Girev' (yet another spelling of his surname). It is clear from the information given there that he was indeed Russian, however the Terra Nova Expedition article states that he was Bulgarian... (the additional information at the NZAHT site on Gerov and Omelchenko is interesting - I'd not read that anywhere before - though I have no idea what sources they are using).

Right, that is quite enough of that! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 11:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

These are my last words on ths matter:

  • Archer and Williamson are both included in the Scott's Last Expedition shore party list of 32
  • Archer was present only for the second year. Williamson was present throughout (he fell through the ice when the ship first arrived at Cape Evans and is mentioned in several contexts during the second year)
  • I have never heard of "Brewster", nor is he mentioned in any expedition histories
  • Bowers was, I am sure, intended for the shore party from the word go. He was not transferred as an afterthought; his main job was to manage the supplies at the Cape Evans base.
  • As to Gerov, whoever said that he was Bulgarian, it wasn't me. He is referred to as Russion in the main histories.
  • Don't treat the NZAHT site as authoritative. I have had to draw their attention to mistakes in the past.

And that is enough. Absolutely. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and sincere apologies for taking up as much of your time as I did. I hope to get some of the printed sources myself, so should be able to look these things up there in future. I will bear in mind what you said about the NZAHT site. Carcharoth (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brianboulton/Archive_80&oldid=1142904955"