User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 27

Nicely done on the soundfiles

Now I know where to go if I need a similar thing done! Anyhoo, we need to do something drastic about the premieres section. I wish the talk page watchers for Tosca were as useful as the ones for Hoover Dam. One there saw a citation problem and fixed it as I slept. Still they are knowledgeable and well meaning, and they've caught an issue or two, so not complaining.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I do plan to help with proof-reading and citation checking once you two have got the article in its final shape. But I would have thought that the last thing you'd want is other editors doing major re-writes of sections, when you're both already working on them in your sandboxes, and have clear ideas about how you want their content to be structured. It's also a waste of time fixing or adding references to material that may well not remain in the final version. That's why I'm confining (my possibly annoying) comments/suggestions to the talk page.;-) If you need any help with a source/image etc. just give me a shout. In the meantime, I'm working on Sardou's La Tosca, which was in a completely dire state [1]. I hope to have it finished by the time Tosca is good to go. Voceditenore (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to fix things as we go along, it saves work at the end. We meant it when we said we wanted help at the beginning. No offence was meant, of course, and I hope none taken.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not offended at all, but I really don't think it's a great idea for me to start monkeying around with the article while it's in a state of flux. Proof-reading at the end doesn't take a lot of time, but edit conflicts (and deleted edits) do. By the way, La Fenice's "programma di sala" for Tosca [2] may be useful for images and their sources. It also has a an annotated libretto, and an essay by the Italian musicologist Michele Girardi (who also has a whole chapter on Tosca in his Puccini: His International Art and coordinated this exhibition). If you need any help translating Italian bits in the "programma di sala", once again, just give a shout. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. Please keep an eye on the article as we go along and continue to feel free to question what we are doing. Thank you for your continued help--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have appreciated the suggestions and discussion that has accompanied the development of this article. Sometimes in the past I have walked alone and wondered if anyone was bothered. I agree, too, that it would be difficult while the article is in the throes of reconstruction to have too many hands working on the text, though tweaks and the removal of obvious faux pas are always welcome. I am currently writing a short Editions history - very short, because as far as I can see there has been no significant revision to the original 1900 version. I also have some suggestions about the Premieres section which I will post shortly. Then the lead needs to be written. Although there are issues about the organisation of sections, in general terms the article is, I think, beginning to achieve a tidier shape. The idea is that, perhaps by early next week, it will be ready for peer review and comments from the wider community. I hope it will emerge as a great collaborative effort. Brianboulton (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and forgive me if I seemed brusque, I do usually work in unattended articles and am unused to interested onlookers. I'll take a shot at writing a lede, though it is subject to change as we see what occurs. I do not think there has been any significant change since 1900 (other than tweaks as including things that were excluded from the autograph score, such as the shephard boy's song, which was written too late.) One thing, I would strike the words "possibly ironic" from the Act II synopsis (Tosca's words after Scarpia dies). I do not think the music suggests anything other than sincerity, and there is no indication in the text of the opera that Tosca is anything other than sincere (perhaps unsophisticated, but sincere) in matters of religion. Mario's comment in Act I to Angelotti that Tosca keeps nothing back from her confessor, and of course her final words.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hoover Dam images

I've started a discussion here proposing a small gallery or two, which is not absolutely forbidden by WP:IG under certain conditions (move some of the artwork and aspects of dam operations images there, all images which clearly refer to something which is discussed in the text but which there is no room for without crowding. Not just for purty pictures in other words.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Distributed element filter FAC

Would you kindly revisit your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Distributed element filter/archive1 and strike them if you feel that they have now been addressed, or else state what you think is still outstanding. Thankyou, SpinningSpark 19:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to strike. Now done. Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

PR warning

Thanks for keeping track of this - it can't hurt to add the warning. Perhaps a link to the backlog page in the warning would help too. I have been a bit more active at FAC lately and have also found a major new source for two FAs so I added 3 and 4 kB of text to Ganoga Lake and Clemuel Ricketts Mansion recently, which has not helped my PR activities. Will do more PRs, thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I will be glad to look at it, though I have promised to look at Sentence spacing first, so it may take me a day or two. I have never heard of thatch worship, so looking forward to learning more about it ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I enjoyed the article and just posted the image check and my support. I also wondered what the least number of edits to get an article to FAC was - I am guessing this one is approaching the lower limit. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the low edit count reflects that the article was substantially completed in a sandbox. Thanks for your help & support. Brianboulton (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference formatting

Hi Brian, I have just been informed that you recommended that the references to the BBC in the Manchester United F.C. article be changed from |work=BBC Sport |publisher=British Broadcasting Corporation to |publisher=BBC Sport . Is this an accepted practice in other Featured Articles? Furthermore, is this supported by any Wikipedia policy or guideline? If so, I will restore your recommendation to the article. If not, I believe it should remain as it is. – PeeJay 22:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you point out for me where this recommendation is, so I can check what I said and in what context? Sorry, but I look at so many refs in so many articles that I tend to forget what I've said. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I haven't actually read the original recommendation myself yet. I was just told by User:Tomlock1 that you had said the refs should be formatted that way. I'll try to find your original comment now. – PeeJay 23:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to help you guys out, Brian's comments were on the FAC review page, as follows:

"General sources comments Some of my concerns on reliability have been raised above. On balance I think you are just about all right on your use of primary sources. The rest of the sources generally look OK, but there are numerous formatting issues that require attention:- Non-print media sources, e.g. CBS Sports (ref 3), should not be italicised. There are many cases. Print media sources, e.g. Daily Mail (ref 38) should be italicised. Check for others Well-known papers, journals etc (The Guardian, The Sunday Times, etc) do not need separate publisher information. Likewise, organisations such as BBC News don't need their parent organisations added. This helps to avoid information clutter in citations Where possible, give the publishers of on-line sources rather than website names or web addresses (ref 6, refs 136-40) Some retrieval dates look very old. Best to update these. I'd like to look again when these tidying-up operations are done. Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)"

I'm not clued up on reference formatting, so just changed them to the best of my ability to adhere to the above principles. Best, Tom Tomlock01 (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, the basic rule is to ensure that print sources - journals, newspapers etc - are italicsed while non-printer sources are not. In the templates, "work=" produces italics, "publisher=" does not. Therefore, put the names of journals and newspapers in the "work" field. Put the names of non-print sources in the "publisher" field. That is essentially what I do on my own FACs and it produces the required result. Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

But I don't understand why non-print sources shouldn't be italicised. Are you saying that a story published in The Guardian should have its |work= written as "The Guardian", while one published exclusively on guardian.co.uk should use |publisher=guardian.co.uk? – PeeJay 07:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Italicisation is a MOS matter, not my decision. In the example you give, The Guardian is deemed the publisher both of the newspaper and the web page, and in each case I would enter it in the "work" field, leaving the publisher field free. This is what I have done on each of my own FACs. If you have further queries or doubts about the matter I suggest you raise them on the WP:FAC talkpage. Perhaps other editors have other ideas. Brianboulton (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the publisher for both should be the parent company (Guardian News and Media), with The Guardian and guardian.co.uk going in the work field. – PeeJay 18:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be technically correct, but WP pracice has tended to omit separate publisher details in the case of well-known national or regional publications, e.g. The Guardian, The New York Times, etc, and to treat the journal as the publisher. As I say above, you should raise your further queries on this issue at the FAC page. Brianboulton (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Millennium Park/archive1

I have responded to concerns at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Millennium Park/archive1. Can you strike and reply as appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Nixon in China

I notice that the Met has this on its schedule for the forthcoming year, in February. Literature and other resources should be more available if we hold off until then. I don't know if my schedule will permit me to go (there is one Saturday matinee, otherwise we're probably talking an $$$ overnight stay in Manhattan), but obviously the programme would be useful.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should hold off. I have a few other projects, including the Mascagni biography that I want to get started on. I've also promised to complete the Monteverdi trilogy by doing L'Orfeo, and I have a few non-musical ideas too. I determined to do the Nixon thing, but it needn't be top priority. I am going to take Tosca to PR today, if that's OK. I'll tell the talkpage people. Brianboulton (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I also suggest we keep our Puccini references someplace handy and consider doing one of the other Puccini "biggies" down the road. On the Nixon thing, not only will there be a programme, but probably "Opera News" will have articles, the NY Times as well. With sources not thick on the ground, it seems better to wait. I may finally relieve Ssilver's frustration and finally do Ruddigore, 125th anniversary of the premiere is in January 2012. And as I said on talk, I imagine we are aiming this for FAC as soon as the thatch is cleared away.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll look forward to Ruddigore. Thatch has 4 supports, no opposes, and about 2% on the FAC interest scale. Maybe a squad of dedicated Eng Lit warriors is even now sharpening its knives and preparing the shred the nom, but I'm more inclined to think it's got the comments it's going to get. Even so I doubt the delegates will promote it just yet. Whatever they do, we must give Tosca a little time at PR - somewhere you implied a week, and I'd be inclined to think a week the bare minimum period. Anyway, I'll start the ball rolling now. Brianboulton (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Tosca

Puccini! What a relief after the monstrous regiment of M's. I shall plunge in this very evening (after the first in the new series of University Challenge, of course.) It will make a break from Kubla Khan where I have painted myself into a corner and look like having to do some actual work in the field of Eng Lit for the first time in forty years. - Tim riley (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As an antidote to the M brigade I, too, revived my Eng Lit (A level Grade B circa 1972) and dashed off a quick homage to Evelyn Waugh, which is lurking here. But Tosca is the flavour of the moment, and we'd be very grateful for your imput. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I shall be grateful for "Ebenezer Proust" (in the Walter Bache review) until my dying day, and cannot offer any typo from this article that measures up - but "forklorist" is moderately intriguing. I have amended a dozen or so typos, and will buckle down to the serious work after dinner. - Tim riley (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably my fault. Well, that is why you ask other people to look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have asked Fasach Nua to opine on that book I mention on my talk page. I have found an undeniable PD image of Scotti as Scarpia, which should make one of our friends on talk page happy.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added 4 images. I don't feel quite right about the images of the opera, because I'm not certain they weren't published outside the US first (I can't prove it either way so far). I am still working on these things, but I find image work tiring and I don't know how much more I can do tonight, I have to do some things tonight. The Puccini image is definitely questionable, I am trying to prove that at least one of the photographers mentioned in that Puccini book died before 1940 but have no results to offer as yet. I have also emailed the archivist at the Met and asked if they have any images of Puccini taken and published when he visited the US. The poster and the libretto, I easily found confirmation they date from 1900 and I think they are OK. I will keep working on this. I'm really hoping Fasach Nua bails us out.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've played more with the image. I found one of Sardou from 1871 which should be OK, plus a nice Punch cartoon of the Divine Sarah jumping Tiberwards. (yes, I know she couldn't reach it, but that seems to have been the popular conception then). Ah, University Challenge. I was a College Bowl veteran, and quite successful, though never won the championship (third place was the best). Unhappily, the US competition has died out, though there are still a number of player-run competitions.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I should be on all evening if you want to discuss any of the peer review points. Incendentally, the Jerome thing was my bad, not yours.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, even Homer nodded from time to time. Please see a comment I've just made on the PR page, and my consequent edits to the Recordings section. Comment welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've done that. Congrats on the thatched cottage. I hope Karanacs hasn't put it into the Architecture section!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

My lowest-key FAC ever. Not a single issue of the slightest significance raised; all I had to do was say thanks six times. I rather doubt that Tosca will be treated in the same way, though...

Tosca images

Hi Brian. I saw your query to 4meter4 re those images. The entire book (published in 1921) is available here on archive.org. The Tosca section provides photo credits etc, and each page can be separately linked. The images can be made much better quality by taking them from this source, rather than the one 4meter4 appears to have used. Let me know if you'd like me to make new versions of the images from the archive.org source and upload them at Commons. The same goes with any of the images you'd like from Catalogue of the exhibition Tosca 1800 1900 2000 (Museo Nazionale di Villa Guinigi, Lucca, 2-27 February 2000). It's a veritable treasure trove. I've already uploaded one, File:Set by Hohenstein for Act 2 of Tosca 1900.jpg, which I've used in the Adaptations section La Tosca. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I worked from the version at google books, but how do you get the images from archive.org? If you can grab them and upload new versions of the ones I uploaded last night, it would be a good thing, the ones last night were of minimal quality. The Italian site seems to be down, no doubt that is only temporary.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I see you deleted the Punch image (I uploaded a better version btw, at sarahlatosca.jpg. I would argue that it is relevant to the discussion right next to it about the difficulty of reducing La Tosca to Tosca and also that the three characters die the same way.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that we are acumulating too many images representing old performances and performers, and that the article is becoming cluttered. I have repositioned some pics for aesthetic reasons, but am still unconvinced they are all necessary. I've restored the Punch cartoon, but that gives us three different representations of the death of Scarpia (two of which are drawings), - too many, in my view. If we keep the cartoon I think we should consider deleting the poster image of the same scene, towards the end of the article.

I have restored the libretto cover, as being more pertinent than an unidentified musical excerpt, which we can hold in reserve if the cover proves problematical. Also, with the new proliferation of images I don't think we need two historic Cavaradossis - Caruso and Marchi. I propose we keep Caruso, for the "name" effect. Also I don't think that any further images should be added, except on an exchange basis and after discussion.

Finally, many thanks to Voceditenore for the helpful information above. I don't think the Aime Dupont images are from the Victrola book, and I got timed out when trying to access the pdf file, but I'll keep trying. Brianboulton (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The drawing is of the death of Tosca. I agree on the images, though we could safely move one or two down to the foot of the article. Suggest losing the image of de Marchi. One image of a performer in each role is sufficient, and as you say Caruso wins trumps down on his name. I think I saw a better image of Ternina and will look for it as a replacement later; the one we have looks like she's playing Brunnhilde.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And even though I uploaded it, the picture of Sardou is to my mind expendable. I'm not a fan of the "I see dead people" approach to article images. Seeing the image of a guy who has been dead for a century tells the reader nothing. Except we have nothing better to put in that section.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How about what I've done now? I'm still fiddling with Marchi/Caruso arrangements - Caruso can't go in the Premiere section, etc, but I'll resolve that somehow. Brianboulton (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That works for me. You saw the peer review response, right?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've not read the PR stuff yet and I'm busy with no n-wiki stuff this afternoon so I'll look at it this evening. I have altered the lead slightly, per talkpage comment, and will add a little to the Critical reception. Brianboulton (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, I didn't realize you meant the Aimee Dupont images (which by the way are now available via the links to the Met). Yes, it's very annoying that the puccini.it site was down today, as I need the catalogue for a reference in La Tosca. Anyhow, when you finally get to look at it just let me know if there are any images you want me to upload. Also can you confirm that you definitely want larger clearer versions of the Victrola performance images. Voceditenore (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think those are going to stay. I uploaded better images from the archive, but if you can do better, please do. You will also note we are having trouble with a verifiably free-use image of Puccini, mainly because in Italy, copyright is 70 years after phtographer's death, and I'm having trouble proving that any of the photographers we know of died before 1940. An image of Puccini in the US published before 1923 would solve all problems.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I find this a bit strange. There are several images of him in Commons by Aimé Dupont ((1842–1900), all from the Library of Congress, and all of annotated there as "no known restrictions on publication." Voceditenore (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: The one which is currently in the Navbox at the head of the article was published in Giacomo Puccini, New York: J. Lane Company (1906). Voceditenore (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

They are dated 1908! How can they be by someone who died in 1900?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Because his studio continued after he died. But in any case, the one in the navbox by F.C. Bango, New York (File:Puccini6.jpg) is dated by the LOC here as circa 1907. It's obviously earlier as it was published in the 1906 book linked above. In any case, it was published in the US before 1923, so I really can't see what the problem is. Voceditenore (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It was copyrighted by Bango in 1907 ... not taken. If a photograph is taken in Italy, it is of course subject to copyright in Italy. Does the fact that it is then used in a pre-1923 US book mean we can use it? Puccini did not visit the US until 1907, and he came again in 1910, so any image in that 1906 book (which I agree is very good) was not taken in the US. I am not an image hawk, but my understanding is that for us to use an image as free use, it must be free of copyright in the country of origin and in the US, where WP's servers are.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've dropped a note to Elcobbola, who was kind enough to comment on Peer Review at Brian's request, asking him to clarify the matter. I am getting tired of looking at early 20th century books at Google books.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"If a photograph is taken in Italy, it is of course subject to copyright in Italy." No. The Berne Convention considers (for published works) country of first publication, not country of creation. For example: If I (German) take a photograph where I am now (Russia) and publish it in a country where I have a residence (US), where do you think that image is copyrighted? My nationality and the physical location where the work was created are not germane. The question here is in what country the Puccini image was first published. If that cannot be ascertained, hosting the file on en.wiki (as opposed to the Commons) would resolve (well, side-step) Italian copyright, if any. Эlcobbola _talk 14:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, shows what I know. That should do it, there were a number of images in the 1906 book which were provided to the author by Puccini, and prior publication is doubtful indeed. I will work on that tonight. Thank you for your help, I am very much all thumbs when it comes to images.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Here's my version of the first of the 3 Victrola images File:Tosca Te Deum Act 1.jpg. Is the improvement enough to justify me doing the other two? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Definitely yes. Thank you. If I were reading this article and came across these images, I'd probably click on them, wanting to appreciate the detail. Note that I cropped the Act 2 image, I would suggest doing the same. Getting way ahead of ourselves, I see that Act 2 image as a likely TFA blurb image, assuming we someday get that far.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Tosca pics

Hi Brian. I did get the pics from the Met archives and it looks like user:Elcobbola has fixed them appropriately.4meter4 (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Just saw the discussion above. Thanks everyone for the help.4meter4 (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the discussion to settle down before seeing if I need to reupload to en wiki. The Met archives sent me an image of Puccini but didn't send me date/photographer, so I am following up, though it is a bit of a moot point by now.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree: let's wait until the end of the week and then decide what further needs to be done on the image front - we have not lacked for input and advice. I think it's basically now a question of ensuring all licences are in order, with particular reference to Italian copyright. Today I have to give time to my other Wiki duties, and also fight the vandals on TFA (Mahler), but I hope to return to Tosca this evening. I am working through the PR page and leaving comments where appropriate. You will no doubt have your eyes on Dief's boys later today, anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, though I probably won't get to watch the first half, I have a dentist's appointment.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Tagging on here: No problems, Brian. I am a bit busy these days (on a business trip actually) and have a few works on the backburner so as to speak (a request for an SVG and my personal projects), but I should be able to return and start what I am preparing onto this project a few months later. Jappalang (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

I know Gustav Mahler was expected to grace the Main Page, but it still looks great up there. Congratulations. Jonyungk (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That too. I kept running across Mahler in my Tosca researches, but never with enough relevance to justify a shout out.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my congratulations too - by the way, I finally listened to his 8th and enjoyed it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

And congratulations on the FA star for The Temple at Thatch. Finetooth (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Mahler looks great, congratulations! Nice coincidence: I nominated "him" for DYK (with Camilla Tilling, Verdammnis und Auferstehung, an article in the FAZ you may be interested in), thank you for a most impressive link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on the new FA too! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Same here—great work! Jonyungk (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(out) And speaking of Mahler, a belated but heartfelt congratulations on Symphony No. 8 (Mahler) making FA. Just saw the article today and it looks great. Hopefully you're still planning to nominate it for TFA in September. Jonyungk (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Romantik

Surprised that the term "romantic" in Mahler is linked to Romance (genre) rather than ?? (period/style) I would like to learn. I found Franz Schubert without any hint at a style in the lead, but with a template Romanticism, and wonder how I should link "romantic" or "late-romantic" best. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The "romantic" link now goes to Romantic music. Not a great article, but pertinent. Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing there, I didn't see that one. Desirable: an equivalent to de:Spätromantik and even one on Late-romantic music. The latter doesn't fit in Romantic music as it is, as that stops at 1910 whereas some composers write late-romantic even today. A separate article could also deal with a concern (discussed) about 20th century romantic music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Va Tosca

I looked at the article. I will probably not have time to do a long, unstressed read through until Monday. Why don't we plan on nomming on Tuesday? It looks generally quite good.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed, that's a better timetable. There are still imaging issues, and I am finding things as I read through. Also, I'm having internet connection problems, which may slow things down - I was offline for several hours yesterday. Brianboulton (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think by then the image issues will have shaken out.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I plan to start work shortly. You have taken on the bulk of the work, I'm afraid. I will see that that is not the case when we get to Nixon in China.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

FAC

I responded to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992/archive1 --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Edmund Evans and spacing in refs

This may be a browser issue, or my eyesight is worse than I thought: about half of the refs are not showing spaces between pages and numbers, though the spaces exist in the text. It's the first time I've not used the harvnb template which always formats them so well, but never expected this article to grow. Anyway, in an attempt to add spaces, I may have added more than necessary, but I can't really tell. Also, on a separate note, I'm happy to do some source reviews as soon as I have little more time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, all spacing is OK between page & number, so there may be a browser problem if it doesn't look right to you. I assure you it is right. Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)