User talk:Anne Teedham/Archive 1

Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project

If you have the time, would you be willing to help copyedit this article? It has a request for peer review that has been open for a couple weeks now, and the only feedback received was that the article needs copyediting before it can become an FA candidate. Thanks, Musashi1600 (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Musashi, I will be out of the country for several weeks; however I will try to copyedit your article from time to time whenever I am online with a free moment. Anne Teedham (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request

Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Curriculum Associates

Frank, I answered you here [1].

Aaron Eckhart

Wonderful, just wonderful. Its written so professional, that I don't know how to thank you for your most appreciated work. Um, do I have your permission to add the information you wrote into the article? Actually, here's something from me to you:

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For all the hard work you put in the writing of Aaron Eckhart's article, I, ThinkBlue, give you this award for all the work you did with copy-editing the article and writing it very professionally. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Gerard K. O'Neill review

Thank you very much for your comments on the article. I based the referencing style on Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example edits for different methods#Shortened_notes_with_wikilinks. I am not set on this citation style, it just seemed like a good way to organize all the references and notes. Can you give me an example of a style you would find easier to use? Would quotations in each note (for example in #34) reduce the need to load the source pages? Maybe I can get it fixed up before you come back to finish the review. Wronkiew (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

HERE'S an example of a successful interaction between a writer and a reader. Note how Footnote 2 references a source, and then Footnote 3 uses that same source yet details specific locations within the source i.e. sections, or page numbers. Then, note how Footnote 1 (as well as the other footnotes) provides for easy return to the precise location within the main article using the alphabetic a through z, or the delta sign (^) . Anne Teedham (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

HERE'S another example of pagination. Note the use of the [7]^:43. I do not like this style; however it works. Anne Teedham (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think either of those examples would be an improvement. In the first example, it is more difficult to find the full citation from the shorter notes. Also, the notes section makes it difficult to see the list of sources used in the article because it is interspersed with short cites. In the second, the page numbers get in the way of the text, and there is no way to add source quotations. I poked around at WP:FAC and found that about a third of the new FAs split the notes and references sections, with short cites in the notes section. Several of them wikilinked the short cites to the full citations in the references section, as Gerard K. O'Neill does. I haven't had any trouble getting back to the text after loading the source, because the back button takes me to the line of text I was reading beforehand. Maybe if I could see the problem you were running into, I would know how to fix it. What web browser are you using? If I can't fix the problem, your review without the fact-checking would still be very helpful. Thank you, and sorry I don't have a better answer. Wronkiew (talk) 06:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I left some comments in response to your review. Also, I just wanted to let you know that I really appreciate your perspective on the article. I hope someday we can find something we agree on. Scroll-wheels? What an awful invention, always getting in the way of the mouse buttons! Can't stand them. Wronkiew (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wronkiew. Recently I read an article which I believe you will find worth noting.

Rudolf Wanderone handles the chronological development of material very well. It begins as a simple 1916 birth-to-death story of a man who lived a colorful life as a pool hustler, then author, and finally as an entertainer. Yet it moves beyond that simplicity into a cleverly handled anecdotal story with a powerful conclusion.

I believe this is because the editors realized that the Resorts International Shoot-Out competition between Minnesota Fats and Willie Mosconi was the key element to a better understanding of Minnesota Fats, and what made him most notable. They then used this scenario to further illustrate the man's personality so that the images created by the final closing-sentences were simple but perfect images of the man.

I believe that you, too, can do that by realizing that the story of Gerard K. O'Neill is the story of a man who creates the mass driver, and then eventually conceptualizes space manufacturing into space colonization.

I see your article beginning on a linear birth-to-death storyline which concludes with a detailed explanation of an imaginary mass driver as it works industriously upon the lunar surface, catapulting tonnage into an enormous catcher's mit attached to a 2000-manned space-engineering plant at L₅ in geosynchronus orbit around Earth. That is to say: I do not want to read three times about Princeton's freshman class seminars. Once is enough. When you move into 1956, begin laying the groundwork, spilling everything you can think of without returning to the year 1956, nor without spilling too many up-coming beans. By 1980, your groundwork will probably need to have said something about mass drivers and about space colonization but build upon the general leading towards the most specific—which in this case would be towards drawing your reader's mind into a bird's-eye view of a working mass driver upon the lunar surface, chugging along and pitching its payload. Maybe just a scenario of Gerard K. O'Neill standing upon the Mojave Desert, watching his prototype, but seeing the future through the creative talents of Wronkiew's artistry with words.

Hopefully, this makes sense to you. (It was written a lot better this morning. But I lost my first attempt into cyberspace when my stinking firewall kicked in; I then clicked the wrong button, and lost the entire composition.) Anyway..., I will be happy to try to elaborate further if any of this makes sense.

I think that you have the tools to write an article as good as Rudolf Wanderone. Take a good look at Rudolf, and see if you agree with me. Annie

I did see your additional comments, thank you. I am still working out how to best incorporate your suggestions. One that I have done was to remove the summary of the Space colonization section. This eliminates one of the three mentions of his freshman physics class. I don't think a passage about O'Neill with an imaginary machine would be encyclopedic, although I do understand your point about emphasizing the mass driver. I didn't find Rudolf Wanderone very compelling. That's probably just because I'm about as interested in pool as you are in space colonization. You can close the peer review; I doubt anyone else will offer comments on it. Thanks again for your review. Wronkiew (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Callie review

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I hereby award Anne Teeham with the Copyeditor's Barnstar, for her amazing work in reviewing and copyediting my Ashley Callie article. She went above and beyond the call of duty in writing an indepth, well thought out review, and then helping me to effect the changes she felt was necessary. She has offered continued support, input and advice. Definitely not a "fire-and-forget" reviewer. Thank you! GrahamDo (talk) 06:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

--- Hi, Anne

I'm copying this text from Talk:Ashley Callie, just in case you've removed that article from your watchlist. I don't want you to leave with bad feelings:

I must admit I was a little "put out" this morning by what I perceived to be a threat. It definitely came across to me as "Remove the image, or I'll request an RFC, and YOU DON'T WANT THAT!" :P I appreciate your explanations, and I now believe that wasn't your intention. It just goes to show that tone is next to impossible to convey in a text-only medium. No harm done - I'm sorry I took it badly. I also looked through the RFC process and the Third Opinion Process, and I considered it. But at the end of the day, I really saw your point about the photo. It honestly doesn't make the man look good AT ALL! I still think we need a photo of him, but maybe after the court case someone will release a more "neutral" one.

I honestly appreciate your input and all the work you've put into the article. It's nice to have another eye or two, and the vast majority of your suggestions/changes I've agreed with whole-heartedly! Please don't leave with bad feelings. You are most welcome to pop into the article whenever you like, and participate in discussions on the talk page! And please keep copy-editing my writing style as well (Just please discuss CONTENT changes). If you don't want to anymore, I'll understand too. I'm copying this message onto your talk page, in case you've removed this article from your watchlist. Thanks again for all the assistance! GrahamDo (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Graham, it has been a pleasure working with you. Keep up the good work. :) Annie