User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 73

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

Alfred Pullin

I don't know if you have heard of "Old Ebor", but I've expanded his article a little. I'm debating whether it is enough to go before FAC, but can't quite decide. I'd be grateful, whenever you get a chance, if you could have a look and give me your opinion. Feel free to laugh me out of court for even thinking it, and any comments on the talk page would be welcome whatever your opinion. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I hadn't heard of him, and he sounds interesting, particularly his work on behalf of discarded cricketers. I will read the article with care in a few days ' time, and comment appropriately. I wonder if he figures in Birley's Social History of Cricket – I have that book somewhere, I'll try and locate it. Brianboulton (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Much obliged. Thanks for the check, it is pretty much what I thought. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Tiruchirappalli

(transferred from earlier to avoid archiving)

Hi, the article is being copy-edited by Eric. You might want to have another look once you revisit. Happy new year! —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, don't want to badger you Brian but can you let us know at the FAC if you still have issues with Tiruchirappalli? If so I can request further assistance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Help

Hi. The delegate at my third FA nomination for Of Human Feelings made a pity remark about me not knowing how to avoid close paraphrasing, and I'd appreciate if you could inform them of what you found when you originally checked the article for that. Dan56 (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the remark about close paraphrasing did not come from a delegate but from a reviewer. Although my spotchecking in the earlier FAC revealed nothing which caused me concern, I did not carry out an exhaustive check. Also, opinions vary as to what represents unacceptably close paraphrasing, so it's not altogether surprising that a new reviewer raises the issue again. I will, however, leave a note reiterating what I said at the earlier review. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but the reviewer informed me that the sound file you approved in the second FAC isn't properly licensed. Should I defend it, or consider removing it? Dan56 (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I have commented on the FAC page. Probably it isn't worth the effort of defending the retention of this file, but it's up to you. Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

FAC

Hugh Walpole, fresh from peer review, is now at FAC. If you have time and inclination to look in, it will be esteemed a favour. – Tim riley (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Fast work! I'm leaving Nancy for several more days (can't face an FAC at the moment) but it will be a pleasure to help old Hugh on his way. Brianboulton (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for peer review on article about a Near-Eastern archaeological site

Hi, I was hoping you could take a look at the article for Tel Kabri, which is currently up for peer review. It's a rather lovely archaeological site in Northern Israel. Most of the work there's been Bronze Age, but it's got something from every period (which will hopefully be explored more later on). Anyway, when you're able, please give this article a look and let me know what you think. Thank you very much!Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 7 Shevat 5774 02:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take a look – will report back soon. Brianboulton (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 7 Shevat 5774 13:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Peale

Could I ask you possibly to return and do an image review? Many thanks,--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Bringing you warm wishes for the New Year!
May you and yours enjoy a healthful, happy and productive 2014!

Thank you for the holiday wishes; I do miss our work together!

Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nancy Mitford may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Profumo Affair may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Levin, p. 65</ref> In the subsequent Commons debate he was described by Wigg as "a lying humbug" (Davenport-Hines wrongly ascribes this comment to [[Reginald Paget, Baron Paget of Northampton|
  • Slow, Sure Death of the Upper Classes".<ref>Davenport-Hines, pp. 306–08</ref><ref name= Muggeridge>{{cite newspaper|authorlink= Malcolm Muggeridge|last= Muggeridge|first= Malcolm|title= The Slow, Sure

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Can I join the queue please?

A long time ago, you had a look at Abe Waddington for me. Since then, I've found a fair bit of new material and tidied it up somewhat. I'm thinking it's worth a stab at FAC now, and if you have the time or inclination, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look and leave any comments on the talk page. It's hopefully more readable than it was! As ever, let me know if I can return any of the long list of favours I owe you. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If I am to review a cricket article, and therefore have to think about cricket, I would indeed prefer it to be about someone (a) who played long, long ago and (b) died either before I was born or was still more or less in the nappy phase. Waddington qualifies on both counts. I forget what the series result was when he played twice against A***ral*a, but I dare say I will find out. I will get to it in a day or two. Brianboulton (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I think I got everything. I revisited Waddington looking for better cricketing days, when Yorkshire were brilliant, and rather forgot the unfortunate parallel with certain events of this winter which arose during his short England career... Sarastro1 (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue

Books & Bytes

Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013

(Sign up for monthly delivery)

Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:

Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%

Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC

New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers

Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors

Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration

Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting
...Read Books & Bytes!

Seedy Review

Building a Library tomorrow morning is The Coronation of Popeye. I mention this lest you should be inclined to increase the BBC's audience from nought to one. Tim riley (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't often listen to the programme, and as I didn't read your prompt until today it is indeed probable that the BBC achieved a clean sheet. PS I know you will be resolutely sceptical, but the sing-off in Poppaea between Nero and Lucan is a joy to hear, especially when Hugues Cuénod sings the Lucan part. Difficult to believe that an old pokerface like CM, who was 76 at the time, could write such music. Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Equally insalubrious review

Hi Brian,

I wonder if I could beg a favour from you? I have the rather wonderful Kenneth Horne at peer review, with an aim to push to FAC (unless the comments suggest otherwise!) Would you have the opportunity to review and comment? There's no rush, and certainly no pressure, if you're piled up with other commitments. Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Oh yes, absolutely! A chance to re-enjoy experiences from my smutty childhood is not to be missed. I will look forward to doing this in a few days. My favourite remembered lines, from a spoof spying sketch:
Horne: What are you doing?
Voice: I'm trying to defect over this wall.
Horne: That's a nice trick, if you can do it.

Brianboulton (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Early Netherlandish painting

This was promoted last night. I've said it before and I'll say it again, thank you for the herculean PR! It was one for the record books!!! Ceoil (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

And as I have said before, this is the kind of article that it's well worth spending time on. I am very glad to see that it's got its star. Brianboulton (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Brian, I can't convey enough how much I appreciate the time and effort you put in on this page. It's a much better article because of your review. I've been shirking my own reviewing duties, mostly because I've been somewhat under the weather, but when I have more energy and time, I'd like to help clear the PR backlog. I do keep an eye out there, but haven't been helping as much as I should. Anyway, this was a tremendous effort on your part and very much appreciated. Victoria (tk) 17:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Profumo Affair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Images

As you have been quietly acquiring an expertise in WP's rules on images, I wonder if I could prevail on you to have a look at File:Ralph_Richardson_trailer.jpg and File:Ralph Richardson and Michèle Morgan.jpg to see if you think their fides are altogether bona. (Sorry, blame SchroCat for the Round the Horne influence). Extra marks for puzzling out who my next FAC is going to be, ahem. Tim riley (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not entirely confident on these issues, but I believe that the deciding issue in such cases is that any film stills in an article should be used for criticism, not merely for illustration. I see that the licence for the Richardson image is the same as that for File:Terry-Thomas in Mad World Trailer.jpg used in the TT article. The image review for that FAC was done by User:GermanJoe, so you might want to contact him. Also, our old friend User:Ruhrfisch, not so active now, is usually very au fait on such matters. As a general guide, this page might be useful. Another site saying much the same thing is here (dealing with Oxford Journals articles). I don't really see why the Fallen Idol image shouldn't be treated in the same way as the Richardson shot, though at present its licencing is different. I hope that you find these comments helpful—though I do recommend you seek more competent advice. Brianboulton (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Sage advice, which I shall follow. Thank you, sir! Tim riley (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

License tagging for File:Mitford56.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Mitford56.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Waddington

Abe is now at FAC here, and any further comments would be gratefully received if you have the inclination! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

(Note repositioned, to remind me!) Brianboulton (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

And on that note, could I also bother you for a source review please! Sarastro1 (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, you beat me to it! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations once more

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Nancy Mitford to FA status recently. I know you know all about WP:TFAR and the "pending" list, so this is just a reminder to use them as and when suits you. Many thanks. BencherliteTalk 23:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I desire to associate myself with that expression of approval. Tim riley (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Likewise. Finetooth (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hear hear! - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
=) —Cliftonian (talk) 10:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all the above for their kind words and/or gestures. Brianboulton (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sir Ralph

I wonder if I can interest you in a peer review of the article on Ralph Richardson? Quite understand if not, and there is absolutely no hurry at all even if you are interested. If you do look in, please run an eye over the short list of questions at the top of the peer review page, on which I'd be grateful for colleagues' thoughts. – Tim riley (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, by all means – but I'd better finish the Horne first (I've been away for a few days) Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Profumo Affair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Brooke (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

Brian, it's an honor to read your review for the Peru national football article. I'm a big fan of your work, particularly the one on the Discovery Expedition. Thank you for the review.--MarshalN20 | Talk 23:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

How about now?

I've done some further work on the Tel Kabri article. It needs morework, sure enough, but this is what's there so far.Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 26 Shevat 5774 23:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I hope to take a look later in the week. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Another coin, I'm afraid

In haste, I fear, but your thoughts would be very welcome, as always, at the FAC of Gold dollar. Thanks,--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It's on my "to-do" list, after Richardson which I hope to start tonight. No apologies are necessary for the coin series. Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: L'incoronazione di Poppea

This is a note to let the main editors of L'incoronazione di Poppea know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 18, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 18, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Claudio Monteverdi

L'incoronazione di Poppea (The Coronation of Poppaea) is an Italian opera by Claudio Monteverdi (pictured), with a libretto by Giovanni Francesco Busenello. It was first performed during the 1643 carnival season in Venice. One of the first operas to use historical events and people, it describes how Poppaea, mistress of the Roman emperor Nero, achieves her ambition to be crowned empress. The opera was revived in 1651, but was then neglected until the score was rediscovered in 1888. Since the 1960s, the work has been performed and recorded many times. The original manuscript of the score does not exist; two surviving copies from the 1650s differ significantly. How much of the music is actually Monteverdi's is disputed. Details of the original cast are largely speculative, and there is no record of the opera's initial public reception. Despite these uncertainties, it is generally accepted as part of the Monteverdi operatic canon, his last and perhaps his greatest work. Written when the genre of opera was only a few decades old, the music for L'incoronazione di Poppea has been praised for its originality and melody, and it helped to redefine the boundaries of theatrical music. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Horne

Many thanks once again for all your input in what was a very positive and helpful PR. For better or worse I've moved Horne into FAC. Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Input request

There is a discussion taking place here regarding the inclusion of File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg at Jimi Hendrix. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Keeler 1963.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Keeler 1963.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. January (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Just to clarify, non-free images from commercial photo agencies can only be used if the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary (WP:NFC#UUI point 7). January (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brianboulton/Archive_73&oldid=1090490251"