On April 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Mungo's Church, Dearham, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
You're welcome. The info comes primarily from the constituency page, which can be checked against other sources. I'll look at doing the others. mattbr 19:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for St John the Evangelist's Church, Newton Arlosh[edit]
On May 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article David Garrick as Richard III, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks, Peter -- it would be impossible without your amazingly productive article writing. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On May 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dante's Dream, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
As no-one commented regarding starting this section, I've made some suggestions at the suggestions page. Fyi, I'm suggesting moving your Listed buildings in Runcorn (urban area) to the Selected list section, if that's ok with you? I've also suggested amalgamating the four lists of John Douglas works into one Selected list, because I think it would probably be unbalanced to have his biography, the host of DYKs (which I'm still in the process of adding) plus four lists -- your comments here would be particularly useful.
I'm hoping to suggest some other complete lists which haven't yet been featured -- I was thinking particularly of your three Scheduled Monuments lists & Grade I listed buildings in Cheshire. I haven't yet combed through the project-tagged lists, and I know that not all of the lists are rated as "list", so if you have any other suggestions that would be most useful! Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just back from holiday (again). I'm happy with all your suggestions. I never thought about the scheduled monuments as FLs; I think that when I wrote them I did not know that FLs even existed. Maybe sometime in the future; meanwhile intending to work on Norton Priory for FA and Eaton Hall for GA (amongst other activities). Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now added two blurbs as described. I'll take a look at the current version of Norton Priory and try to get up the courage to comment at the FAC. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now commented. Sorry, I should have raised some of these points during the peer review; I hadn't realised how much the article had changed since I last read it. Although there's a long list of comments, most are fairly minor, and only a few require extra information, so hopefully you should be able to address them easily. The most difficult might be the plans -- I wondered about including this, but I think it would significantly improve the article's comprehensibility. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I won't write this on the FAC page for fear of getting myself into trouble, but under English usage it's possible to redraw line drawings with relatively superficial changes without being held to infringe copyright. It would be particularly easy if you had several different plans and could amalgamate different aspects in one drawing. If you e-mail me scans I could have a go (I'll send you my address as I don't think the in-wikipedia system handles attachments).
Re the Nantwich list, in the short term I had in mind inclusion on the portal, but I've been meaning to see whether the list could be improved for the FL criteria for some time. I've tried using the geolocation template before but couldn't make it work, probably because as a geograph-er I strongly prefer using grid references to coordinates. I'll have another fiddle in my sandbox; perhaps the coordinates could be hidden and still work? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! I seem to have got it working in my sandbox -- a combination of starting with GRs (which don't work) and then switching to coordinates must have caused cache problems in my previous assays. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Coordinates are easy-peasy if you use Earthtools (and they are much, much, much more accurate than GRs).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of using the GRs on the English Heritage site ([1]) (which seems to be providing 5 figure GRs for the listed buildings I've checked, though I'd be inclined to truncate to 4 figure as 1 metre accuracy seems spurious for buildings), and then converting using the GeoHack link. I don't understand the accuracy comment, I'm afraid. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I suppose it's what you're used to. It's just that by using Earth Tools you can focus down on to the centre of the building, and then get a pointer that goes to the precise spot; it's so easy, you don't need GRs and conversions. Have a look at "my" lists, if you're interested; it's saved me hours of time, and it's quite fun too. Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'd like to try and get some discussion started over at WP:MERSEY on the listed buildings articles, about how they should be organised and what information should be included. Anyway I'd be grateful for your input --Daviessimo (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter; I've added some notes to the discussion there. As I am about to embark on similar lists for Brighton and Hove, I'd be interested to see your responses. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, can you tell me anything about the mason/builder Thomas Hunter? I think you said he was associated with Norton Priory.
RLamb (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I know nothing about him, nor of any connection with Norton Priory.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nooo! That's not what you said in Archive 8:-
"I own the two standard works on Norton Priory and they do not mention it(i.e. Witton church roof); although one of them states that the "fine tower" of Witton church was designed and built by the mason Thomas Hunter, who is also thought to have built Norton's cloisters."
I certainly hope that's true. It was the church Open Day yesterday and I spent a lot of it loudly informing people the tower was built by the noted mason Thomas Hunter, who did work at Norton Priory... RLamb (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I have just returned from two holidays and was trying to clear my backlog (too quickly). I had completely forgotten about Hunter and there is no reference to him in Norton Priory. I may have somewhat mislead you in my previous message, so here is the relevant extract from Greene's book: "Thus the mason who designed and built the remarkable new cloister in the years before the Dissolution was probably recruited locally. A man such as Thomas Hunter, who built the fine tower at St Helen, Witton (Northwich), the rich chapel of ease of Great Budworth - where it is possible that he also built a tower - would be an obvious choice to carry out work at the abbey that owned both churches." Reference: Greene, J. Patrick (1989), Norton Priory: The archaeology of a medieval religious house, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 155–156, ISBN0-521-33054-8.{{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Pevsner says about Great Budworth: "It is so similar to the tower at Northwich, that the same mason, Thomas Hunter, may be assumed." Reference: Pevsner, Nikolaus (2003) [1971], The Buildings of England: Cheshire, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, p. 227, ISBN0 300 09588 0{{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). I hope I have not landed you in too much trouble! Best wishes.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Peter, I feel vindicated. As Great Budworth was the mother church of Witton it makes sense they would both use the same mason. Wonder who he was? Never know I suppose. RLamb (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter! I've had another read though and it's looking good. I've left a note of "strong support" on the FAC page. I'll keep an eye on how it goes. Let me know if there's anything I can help with on it.
Best wishes, Soph (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's great. Good to hear from you. I'm optimistic (hope it's not a false optimism!). Please improve anything that needs improving.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've e-mailed you a draft plan for the 13th C priory -- let me know what you think. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have now done the pre-fire plan & am about to start tidying & then labelling -- what parts do you want labelled? I propose just to use capital letters for ease of translation. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded a version at Commons for your comments. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That looks brilliant to me. Only comments — congratulations and many thanks.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm glad it's ok. I've made a very minor amendment to the labelling, which was inconsistent, and added it to the article. Note, if you change the legend significantly, you should also change the Commons description. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented on most of your comments. I don't know why the article is getting so little attention from the FAC regulars, it's a bit worrying. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More responses added. Hope these are now OK. I suspect the review is getting so little attention because "they" are waiting for your conclusions.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- thanks for all the editing, I do think this version is improved. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And am I the first to offer my congratulations? Excellent job! Espresso Addict (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are the first! And thanks for the challenging suggestions and support. Another FA for Cheshire.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I usually look up Images of England when finding Listed Buildings, but I came across this, [2], which although it has no images does have a lot of other "stuff". I'm going to use it to try and make one of those lists you're so good at. I realise you probably already knew about it, but thought it worth a mention, just in case you didn't. --J3Mrs (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't aware of this site, so many thanks for letting me know about it. The problem with Images of England is that it is "frozen" at 2000 and has not been (and will not be) updated. I have checked on Runcorn and this site includes one building listed since 2000 (I nominated it), so it is more likely to be up to date. The problems I have found at the moment is with Wales. To date I have not found an online site (although they tell me they are working on it), and this site does not (so far as I can find) give the Grade (somewhat essential I should have thought!). Scotland does have Historic Scotland which I assume is up to date. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've only looked at England but I like the way it much easier to search! Well it's a start! it seems to be an ongoing project. Hope it proves useful.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re Wales, I've recently found this, which has potential, but more interestingly today I found this official website, which allows you to zoom in on the place of your choice in Wales and see what information there is, including the listed building information. I've only just started trying to work out how to use it, and it seems a bit user-unfriendly at the moment. However, you can get to the full listed building reports for individual structures such as this one, which matches the version I was sent electronically by Cadw. One "hack" seems to be that if you know the listed building number you can change the "id=" at the end of the url, which saves having to go through the map. Hope this helps. BencherliteTalk 09:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; that looks promising. I'll have a good explore of it when I have time (currently spending priory time at FAC). Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC) (That's a nice Freudian slip - I meant priority, but the article's about a priory!) --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks at though between all those sites Listed buildings is pretty well covered now!:-)--J3Mrs (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for St Michael's and All Angels Church, Guiting Power[edit]
May I ask what the issue is regarding post GA development? I'd rather fix it now than see major structural changes during the FAC process. --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much an "issue". Malleus and I worked the article to GA, and it was accepted. Almost immediately another editor reformatted the whole thing in a rather different way. It did not really affect the standard of the article, but it was not the way we had prepared it. (If you trawl the History of the article you can see what happened.) You may have seen the interchange of messages here. I conclude from this that MF is unlikely to do much more to the article. I have today done quite a bit to it (in a trivial sort of way), but am a bit disinclined to get too involved. How about asking for a formal peer review, and see what comes of that? The article should be a FA (for the sake of the Cheshire Project) but it has not gone in the direction MF and I had planned. But power to you and to any other supporting editors. I shall continue to take an interest and to help (maybe in a little way) where I can.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Peter, I'll have a look at the GA version, compare and contrast and see what I think. --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're a bit busy with FAC at the moment, but could I run this past you, given your expertise in the field? I'm trying to write articles about all the listed churches (73) on Anglesey, with the aim of getting at least some GAs and an FL out of it. I know it's a bit further out than John Douglas tended to work (although I think I spotted your fingerprints on an article about a memorial in Llangefni) so I'm not competing with you for territory, at least! If and when you have a moment, would you mind taking a look and let me know how I could improve them? St Cristiolus's Church, Llangristiolus, for example; the others you'll see through "See also"s etc. No rush. Many thanks, BencherliteTalk 20:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words; my fuller reply is on my talk page (for a change) to keep the comments together, since I've asked a few people to take a look (Hassocks and you were obvious choices, of course!) Re page-view stats for DYK, Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-06-14/Technology_report says that there have been problems this week, so that might be the explanation for the poor showing... BencherliteTalk 11:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opening map, untick everything apart from the Cadw Listed Buildings Database
Click the "Z" under the map, this leads to a "Zoom to" page. Let's select the town of Amlwch
Click the "I" under the map, then click on one of the dots e.g. the one by the lighthouse.
Click to the Cadw Listed Buildings tab, and we get one report for "Point Lynas Lighthouse and Telegraph Station with accommodation blocks and enclosure walls", and a link to this.
Alternatively, click on the dotted box at the far right hand side under the map and select an area; then select the Cadw tab and it will show you all the listed building reports in the area you selected. (Only just found this option as I was writing this, so it's not as unfriendly as I thought!)
I've had a go at creating a List, Listed buildings in Rivington to be exact. It has made my eyes water but that apart, would you cast your eye over it, it's at User:J3Mrs/sandbox3 before it goes "Live". You will notice that I have blatantly copied one of your formats. (Thanks for that) I would appreciate your opinion.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for butting in. Peter's format for this kind of article is great, I agree. The lead seems a bit muddled to me though. The article is about listed buildings in the area, but we're variously confused by the village or the civil parish, and even given a population number. I think the lead needs to focus on the buildings, not on the area. MalleusFatuorum 18:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto on the apologies, but listed buildings lists are something I've been looking at recently (and I have something in my own sandbox!). The sorting of the date column isn't working at present: a 16th-century building is earlier than one from 1694, which is at the end of the 17th century, and a 1541 building is earlier still - the dates are very jumbled up. I'd be tempted to explain what a Grade II or Grade II* listed building means (either in text or in a box as at List of houses and associated buildings by John Douglas). You might also want to consider adding {{GeoGroupTemplate}} to allow easy creation of a map of the area and buildings. Otherwise, other comments I'd be making at PR or FLC are mainly nitpicks, so I'll leave those for now. Looks good, though. BencherliteTalk 19:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :-) When you've a minute can you take another peek please, I replied on my page. I haven't done it all yet! :-)--J3Mrs (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Peter I. Vardy has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Peter I. Vardy's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Peter I. Vardy!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's very kind of you. Don't know what I've done to deserve it, other than enjoy myself. Best wishes to you and yours,--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I recall that you wrote that you were working on Eaton Hall -- I've just come across this link at the local website which might be of interest [3],[4]. Where I've been able to check it, I've found the site's usually pretty reliable, but it might not be reliable enough to cite if you're going for GA (though I've got away with it on Churche's Mansion); however, Andrew Lamberton answers e-mail queries at a column on the website [5], and might be willing to donate images. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's fascinating. The old Waterhouse Hall was so vast I guess there are parts of it all over the country, if not all over the world. I don't think I'll add it to the article, though. Can you imagine a reviewer — "bits of an old hall in a demolished bungalow; so what!". But I think I'd better nominate the article for GA now (soon). I had been expecting a bit more action on Norton Priory, but apart from yourself, it's been a bit quiet. So if you have any comments to make on Eaton Hall, Cheshire, (GA standard, not FA) I should be pleased to receive them. I'll open a request on the talk page. Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lamberton is a genuine local historian -- he's the co-author of Lost Houses in Nantwich, for example, which I happen to have on my desk at the moment -- but you're right that in the context of the current article it would be overly detailed to include (perhaps an external link?). I'll try to find a moment to review the Eaton Hall article soon -- not to mention getting back to support Norton Priory. (I'm putting a lot of effort into my Listed buildings in Nantwich at the moment, and it's taking over my life to an unfortunate extent.) Espresso Addict (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've no doubt that Lamberton is OK. I'm very impressed by the way the Nantwich list is progressing; I guess you'll nominate it for FL when it is ready. Just a suggestion; when one of my lists was undergoing FLC, I was asked why the refs had a separate column. So I deleted the column and added the refs after the text in the Description column. IMO it looks much better, and reduces the amount of white space in the table. In addition, I think you'll have to add alt text to the photos, as well as rollover text. Keep going! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had consolidating the references in with the comments down on my list of tbds, and I agree it does look a lot better like that. Do FLs really need alt text? I thought that was currently on hiatus. I'm trying to screw myself up to convert all the web references to citation/citeweb format, but keep putting it off (I have RSI so I have to be careful to ration repetitive typing). Also I know I've got to do something to make the dates sort properly. Do you have any handle on how many articles you need to create for this kind of list? I know all the grade II* need doing, but I'm assuming I can get away without doing anything like all the grade IIs. The dratted thing seems never ending.... Espresso Addict (talk) 06:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've added a Commissioner's Church category to this. From what I can see, the Commissioner's Churches were funded by parliament, whereas all the sources I have consulted in writing the article say that the funding for Holy Trinity was raised locally. Can you add your source for it being a Commissioner's Church, please (or remove the cat)? Stronach (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delighted; I've added the information, plus details of the contractors, as a separate paragraph, so that it doesn't interfere with the inline citations. The info is taken from the standard work on Commissioners' churches, which in an appendix, provides a full list of all the churches receiving grants, with details of their amounts. I should like to add such details to all Commissioners' churches, but as there were over 600 of them, it would be quite a task. Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great - thanks for the addition, very interesting it is too. Stronach (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the discussions and they made my head reel — maybe it's too early in the day, maybe it's too hot ... I've replied here rather than in the relevant discussions because I am not sure how and where it fits into them.
Although I've written a lot of articles on architectural subjects, I'm no expert. In fact I do not know much about it; it's a recently acquired interest and I'm learning. One of my stumbling blocks is the article English Gothic architecture — I presume there must be some such entity. Anyway it's a poor article with no inline citations. Worst of all, it says that Gothic architecture in England has features "sometimes in parallel with and sometimes diverse from those of continental Europe", and then does not tell us the similarities or the differences. I should have thought these were critical to the article; if not, why write an article on the subject? We need an expert to re-write the article properly. Or, even better, why not change the title to "Gothic architecture in England/Britain" (and re-write the article)?
That's a bit of a ramble, but it's parallel to the debate on categorisation. Just as the title "English Gothic architecture" is maybe a nonsense, so might be the category of that name. I would be comfortable with the tree: Architecture: Architecture by style: Gothic architecture: Gothic architecture in England. This would nicely parallel Architecture: Architecture by style: Gothic Revival architecture: Gothic Revival architecture in England; which seems to work. I hope that is a bit helpful.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd never seen the article before, & to me "Gothic architecture in England" (or Gt Britain really) is the better approach. I think in at least the early days they often brought in French masons anyway. The category discussion will I think need to be restaged somewhere; the debate really is whether "buildings" should be grouped in categories, rather than just "architecture". At the moment the two trees are mostly entirely separate & we don't have a scheme that links up all eg "Gothic churches" - actually not so much an issue in England, as there are so few other medieval buildings, or say "Baroque houses". Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no reference saying that Nomansheath is the local name, as the article says. The citation following it in the article leads to a map calling it "No Man's Heath" (when you magnify it). IMO the title should certainly stay as it is. If the alternative name continues to be used, the proposer must cite a source.
Points answered above. I will copy the discussion on the talk page to the WikiProject Cheshire talk page, as suggested below.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It struck me that if I was going to write lots of articles using the same basic structure and the same standard references, it'd be easier to have my own standard template that preloads when you start a page, the way that e.g. creating an RFA for someone does. So now I have User:Bencherlite/Churchbox, User:Bencherlite/Churchbox2, and User:Bencherlite/Churchbox2/subst. Feel free to steal the idea or ignore entirely! BencherliteTalk 23:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's extremely generous of you; and it's a brilliant idea (particularly to avoid repetitive stress injury!). It is probably of less value to me now, as I have completed more or less all the notable (IMO) Cheshire churches. I'm avoiding boredom by flitting from subject to subject. Although most of my articles have been (and will be) on churches, I am interspersing these with such things as a current FAC and a GAC (neither on churches). The churches I am currently tackling (in a random sort of way) are Grade I listed churches in Cumbria, the architectural works of the Sharpe, Paley and Austin practice of Lancaster, Commissioners' churches, and (to come) churches looked after by the Churches Conservation Trust.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that's most helpful. I've added the info to the article and will copy your reply (above) to the article's talk page. Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
