Talk:Charles Bertram

Replaced article

Replaced the previous article, which was a copy of the 1911 EB entry for Bertram. Also rated it "low" priority and entered the "listas" information. Notuncurious (talk) 02:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the EB. Just needs TONE reigned in, references cited INLINE, and updating. (Which here there's actually very little need to do...) — LlywelynII 06:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing

Actually, the existing sources are pretty good and thorough. If people are looking to bring this up to GA status, they just need to go through and actually cite the page numbers the information came from. [Mostly done.] — LlywelynII 06:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hm... actually, this should be fine, but let's see what a reviewer says. — LlywelynII 04:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Other works

• Mayor records Prof. Munck claiming a treatise by Bertram on Cnut the Great in the Library at Copenhagen but also another source saying that the library catalog credited it to Bertram but that it appeared to have been made by someone who didn't know English.
• Linn & Mitchell both invent a separate "Epistle Dedicatory" to the Queen, but seem to be talking about the 1751 Ethics.
• Shirley notes Bertram "carr[ied] out some perfectly respectable excavations". Not sure what he's talking about, unless he's just using the word as a very unhelpful synonym for "study" w/r/t Bertram's linguistic work.
• The Danish Library has Bertram's name as a "contributor" to a 1490 (?!) edition of Auctoritates Aristotelis et Aliorum Philosophorum.

 — LlywelynII 14:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

On the Great Advantages of a Godly Life

Betragtning over et gudeligt Levnets store Fordele calls itself a Danish translation of an English original but the English title seems to only exist as a discussion of Bertram's work. Another forgery? or did the people writing about Bertram just keep copying someone's misunderstanding of the original title? — LlywelynII 15:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

GA nomination status: Failed

Hello! I am CookieMonster755! I have reviewed your nominated of Charles Bertram for a good article! Unfortunately, at this time, your article has not meet the criteria for a good article. You can read the criteria here: Wikipedia:Good article criteria. You may see the nomination page here: Talk:Charles Bertram/GA1.

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, and I hope we can address further issues and concerns very soon. Sincerely Yours, CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

As noted at the review page, the "review" "failed" owing to the reviewer's disinterest in reviewing the article and inability to read licensing information. It's a 600+ year old map. Reproductions of it are in the public domain. — LlywelynII 14:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

LlywelynII — Please be Civil. Thank you. CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

CookieMonster755 — I am. Trying to badger individual people with rules rather than address their concerns is rather uncivil, but I'm sure you're just somewhat embarrassed. Don't be. We're all just here to improve the entries, but it's easy to get caught up in procedure and make simple mistakes like auto-failing a review based on a 700-year-old map's copyright status. No worries. Just, y'know, let's fix it and move on with addressing any actual problems the article has. — LlywelynII 08:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

LlywelynII - Yes,I was somewhat embarrassed, but I will surely take your advise! I will improve my common sense ;) Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

LlywelynII, I'd like to suggest that rather than ask for a reassessment, it will probably be quicker for you to simply renominate the article for someone else to review. It's up to you, of course. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, the rationale for the "fail" was inappropriate, the reviewer is now aware of that and will hopefully avoid similar mistakes in future reviews involving accurate reproductions of antique 2D images, every single one of which fall under PD-Art. Mention of the page having "failed" anything should be removed and the process should continue under whatever name you like. If you think my general snarkiness has discomfited or disinterested CM75, I'm fine with whomever... but I'm likewise sure Cookie is fine as well or s/he wouldn't be taking the time to volunteer for this service. — LlywelynII 02:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

LlywelynII — I think it would be fine to simply renominate the article, however that's just my opinion. Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

As above, if there's an admin who can simply declare the review a hash and remove the "failed" status, that's fine; if there's not and we have to go through some process to correct your mistake, that's fine too. — LlywelynII 03:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)