User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Peer Review

I'd be glad to have a go. For a peer review what you'll probably get from me is a fairly random collection of observations as I go along: hopefully some of it will be of use. Cheers. 4u1e 13:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've had a go. Feel free to contact me if you want to discuss further. If you feel like copyediting Brabham BT19 at any time, that would be lovely. It'll certainly be a change of topic for you..... ;-) 4u1e 16:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Those suggestions are excellent - I will respond on the peer review page as I fix them. I will definitely look at Brabham BT19 in the next two or three days. Thank you! Awadewit | talk 19:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think you've addressed all the points I raised. It's been a pleasure working with someone who responds positively to the comments raised. Good luck with the further development of the article. My area of expertise is rather different to yours, but if there's anything I can help with at any time, let me know. Cheers. 4u1e 18:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Tea for two

Yes, I would enjoy reading the novels together. I'd like to get a bit more done on my critical reading/notetaking before starting, though. Things at work have been strenuous the last ten days or so and I will have limited time to do anything WP until next week. Cheers. Simmaren 12:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am going on vacation for a week myself, so I will have limited time to add in notes. I'll do my best, though. Just let me know when you want to start reading Austen. Any time, even if it is months from now, would be fine with me. Awadewit | talk 05:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Help with copyediting an article

Hey, could you lend a helping hand with a current FAC that I have? The article is History of American football and the FAC is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of American football. I have done my best to meet requests as they come up; but it looks like there is a need for a set of fresh eyes to give it a general copyedit from top to bottom. Could you perhaps add it to your queue to take a look at it when you get a chance? Thanks! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I recognize the urgency for an FAC, but is it at possible that I could I do it on Thursday? I am on vacation right now and it is hard to find the time for a thorough copy edit. Awadewit | talk 03:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No rush, really. Enjoy your vacation. Thursday or later is fine; FAC's usually remain up for discussion for several weeks, and this one isn't that stale. Have a good time on vacation! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

Awhile back you wrote a note on my page not to get discouraged with editing the Ronald Reagan page along with self-proclaimed Reagan fans. I could use your input on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ronald Reagan page. Wikipediatoperfection 23:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I am on vacation right now and cannot devote the time necessary to a review of that page. I'm really sorry. Awadewit | talk 03:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wollstonecraft map

Finally getting to this and have some questions for you. 1. Do you have a preference on whether I use period or modern names for the towns? 2. Was there a starting point in England given? 3. What to do about Schleswig-Holstein - at the time they would've been independent states ruled separately by the King of Denmark, I don't want to get into showing individual German states of the time, but since this area was part of the trip I should show it - do your maps make a distinction for this area or do they just show it as part of Denmark? Kmusser 19:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• How about period names with modern names in parentheses? I am on vacation right now and I don't have that particular book with me, so the others will have to wait (I don't remember any complicated country delineations). I will let you know on Wednesday. Awadewit | talk 20:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've made a draft. I want to give you a chance to compare it to the paper maps before I add it to the article just to make sure I don't have anything way off. Except for Oslo it looked like the various name differences were between English and the local language rather than a time period change, so I went with the English names. Two I had to guess at, I'm assuming that Helgeraa and Helgeroa are the same place, the location looked about right. I also couldn't find Kvistrum, there are reference to the Battle of the Kvistrum Bridge in that general area, but no exact location, I found a park called Kvistrøm which is what I went with. According to the Oslo article it would've been Christiania then, if she uses Kristiania in the travelogue though I'm willing to change it.Kmusser 19:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• What do you think about arrows indicating the direction she was going? (I will have my books tomorrow to check it against, but at first glance, it looks right.) Awadewit | talk 21:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• I've checked my map - yours looks perfect. I've checked around a bit and I think Wollstonecraft started in Hull, so perhaps you could add that first part of the journey. Thanks so much for doing this! Awadewit | talk 02:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Added in Hull and some direction arrows and went ahead and added it to the article, let me know if you see anything else that needs changing. Kmusser 13:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• That looks wonderful! Thanks so much. Please let me know if there is anything I can do for you in return. Awadewit | talk 16:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fun Home

Hello, Awadewit. I'm trying to shepherd Fun Home through FAC. Recently, BillDeanCarter (talk · contribs) suggested that the article would benefit from your attention, because of your experience with getting pages on works of literature to FA status. Specifically, there are some questions about the article's layout and structure at Talk:Fun Home#structure. I see that you're on vacation now, and I don't think there's any particular urgency about this — the FAC is going pretty well so far — but if you could give the article a glance when you have the time, I'd appreciate it tremendously. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• If it can wait until Saturday or Sunday, I would be glad to help. Awadewit | talk 05:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• That should be fine. As they say, there is no deadline. Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the article — I'll look over your suggestions and give them serious consideration in the next few days. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• You're welcome. I hope I didn't overwhelm you. I have a tendency to do that. Awadewit | talk 04:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Jane Austen Timeline

It's gorgeous! I'm very impressed. If nothing else happened to the JA article, this would be a tremendous improvement. I especially appreciate your mention of the sailing of the convict fleet to Australia, a fact about social origins my grandmother always tried to forget. In reviewing the timeline, I noticed just a few minor things I might like to tweak when I have time. I assume that's o.k.?

Have fun on your vacation. Simmaren 11:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Tweak anything you want! Remove, add, rearrange, whatever. I only have one Austen chronology with me at the moment, but when I get home I will add more Austen events from other chronologies. I wasn't sure how many "Austen family" events to include. I have left most of them out at the moment, but if you think I should add family marriages, nephew and niece births, etc., let me know. Awadewit | talk 14:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Mary

(re FAC) We could get every user in the place to copyedit your article, and they'll all tweak something, but I don't see what the problem is. It's been looked over by many high-calibre reviewers. I chose not to remove the phrase "in addition to" on principle. :) There's a difference between using such phrases rarely in good writing, and starting every sentence with such constructions, right? I've begun another article on a shorter poem: In Praise of Limestone. I find this an interesting challenge, given my lack of background in this area, the restrictions of the voiceless encyclopedia article format, and the fact that such a poem is only vaguely "about" something. :) –Outriggr ♠ 05:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• You must know that I agree with you that good writing is not rule-bound. I just wanted to make a good faith effort to address the concerns raised at the FAC.
• Are you saying that the poem is ambiguous? No! It can't be! That pretty much precludes your article from being featured, since you will have tons of weasel words. :) Awadewit | talk 05:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• It is interesting to note that it has been stated with some degree of certainty by the greatest editor in history that you may be right. –Outriggr ♠ 05:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Back to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary: A Fiction - I've been dropping in every so often, and don't think there is anything waiting on me specifically to do, either to address MOS technicalities, or Tony's comments. Or is there something I'm missing since the review has gotten long? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think there is anything for you to do. Do you have any ideas on captions for the Romeo and Juliet painting? Awadewit | talk 16:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a lot. I am afraid I don't think it fits that well. Yes, it's romantic, possibly the definitive work of tragic romance, but I don't think it's the specific kind of staid romance that Mary was written to criticise, nor the kind that it embodies. (Except for possibly the part about everyone dying by the end. :-) ) If you can find a picture about "the traditional romance plot" or "romantic friendships" or even Emile, that would probably fit better. Or maybe I don't understand your purpose in adding it either. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the Fuseli with the title page from Julie. I've used the Emile image in Wollstonecraft articles, so I think a little variety here would be good. Awadewit | talk 04:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

BT19

That's great! Thanks. Are there really no more problems with the actual writing than that?! If there are, feel free to niggle, I shan't be offended.

Regarding your questions, this is why I like to get people who have absolutely no interest in the topic to read the articles, because ultimately I can't pick out what will and won't make sense to a reader 'cold' to the subject. Some of your points I think I can clarify quite easily, others may be more difficult and I'll come back to you for your opinion, if I may.

One point I will address now: I know Tauranac's explanation of 'Old Nail' doesn't make a great deal of sense, but it's the only quote I can find that actually explains it! It's possibly more of an idiomatic Australian thing. I get the sense of an old nail being old (obviously!), reliable, simple and tough ('tough as nails') from it. Googling around, there's at least one other race car known as 'Old Nail', and the phrase comes up as being applied to older, but still useful, vehicles or engines. That's pretty much all my original research, though, so unless I can find a dictionary that records this usage, there's not much I can do. 4u1e 08:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I really didn't see many problems at all, but then sometimes I had no idea what was being said, so I can't say for sure. A copy editor who at least knows how a car works might be more helpful. :) I wouldn't expect the page to be understandable on every level to every reader, but I think I was able to follow most of what you were saying. Awadewit | talk 11:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if there is any way to suggest in a NPOV manner that we all know the Tauranac quote is a bit cryptic. 11:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You are always welcome to ask for my opinion on an article's accessibility. I serve the same function for some science editors around here since my knowledge of science is limited to popular science books and MIT opencourseware lectures. Awadewit | talk 11:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Mary (the character) and her successors in literature

Hi A!

<gush>I really like your additions to Mary:A Fiction; it reads wonderfully! :) I also love the Buddha-like equanimity you've shown at the its FAC; your comments are sharp and alert, but have the inner tranquillity that enlightenment brings.</gush> :)

I'm trying! Your emailed comments were very helpful! Awadewit | talk 21:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more about the character of Mary and her successors were in literature. I couldn't think of a similar character before Jane Eyre (1847) and perhaps Helen from The Tenant of Wildfell Hall (1848). Do you think it would be reasonable to say that Mary:A Fiction was a forerunner of "independent woman in unhappy marriage" novels of the latter nineteenth century, such as Madame Bovary (1856), Anna Karenina (1877), and The Awakening (1899)? There's also the play A Doll's House (1879). I would love to know more about that era in literature (1800-1850); it's a blind spot for me. Hoping all's well with you, Willow 18:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that you could say that Mary is a forerunner in spirit (although Maria in Wollstonecraft's Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman (another article I will be bringing to FAC soon) might be an even better candidate). You have chosen a French novel, a Russian novel, an American short story and a Norwegian play. It is difficult to link all of those literary traditions together and certainly none of those authors ever read Mary. I think that your list of texts demonstrates, above all, that middle-class women were in similar positions in Europe and America during the nineteenth century and that an acknowledgment of their difficulties was becoming more acceptable. Note that your list contains texts written by men - it was rare for eighteenth-century texts that deal with "women's issues" to be written by men (I can think of only one at the moment - a treatise by Condorcet). J.S. Mill helped pave the way for that, I think. Awadewit | talk 21:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I did want to be broad. :) Wasn't Mary Wollstonecraft talked about for long after her death, though? I remember reading suffrage publications that mentioned her as an example. It's also interesting to me that I don't see Dorothea in Middlemarch as a successor to Mary the character, despite some parallels. Ta, Willow 14:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I can tell you why you have a blind spot from 1800 to 1850 (except for Jane Austen). For nearly the entire history of the discipline of literary studies, the early nineteenth century was considered bereft of good novels. The standards chosen for "good novels" simply did not work with what was written then. Before the advent of historicist criticism and feminist criticism, most of those novels (with the notable exception of Austen) were simply dismissed as hack work. What was studied from that era, in British literature anyway, were the Romantic poets (Wordsworth, Shelley, Keats, Coleridge, Blake, and Byron - they are called "the big six".). Once in a while Walter Scott would pop up. Since scholars are less interested in making value judgments than they used to be, more from that period is being studied (one of the real benefits of postmodern relativism). So, for example, Maria Edgeworth is being given her due (she was far more popular than Austen and generally considered one of Britain's most brilliant writers during her lifetime). I am less sure about German and French scholarship, but I suspect that German scholarship is full of analyses of "Sturm und Drang" texts like those written by Goethe. Since scholars decide what to teach, what they believe is important often ends up in classrooms... I'll stop rambling now. Awadewit | talk 21:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There's always Frankenstein. My impression is that it's not highly regarded by the cognoscenti, but I liked it and found it to be prescient; it also has interesting thoughts on life, science and redemption. I'll have to read something of Maria Edgeworth, whom I'm appreciating more as I learn more about her. Gotta run, sorry, Willow 14:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I think it Frankenstein has come into its own. "Everyone" teaches it now. :) Awadewit | talk 15:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Pham Ngoc Thao

Thanks for all your help :). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm happy to see that the article has made FA! Awadewit | talk 03:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wicked Priest DYK

I've just removed Wicked Priest from the DYK update template. I agree it's an interesting article which should be featured in its turn; however, adding items so far out of sequence is not normally a good idea. Regards, Espresso Addict 09:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I do have one question about DYK. I added Wicked Priest because it was one of the few hooks that could be considered non-Western in some way (it's about the ancient world) - I was aiming for diversity. Do dates trump diversity, because I know the DYK list tries to be as diverse as it can. Awadewit | talk 15:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that diversity of topic and region is very important at DYK; in fact I deliberately try to add non-American articles preferentially, when available, because there are often very many US articles in the suggestions, and I have found that some American editors don't realise that they're compiling a regionally unbalanced selection even after adding 5/6 US ones! However, as nominations expire 5 days after article creation, it's generally considered polite to give each item its chance in the limelight by selecting items only a day or so in advance. It also gives everyone who participates in the process chance to vet the items, making sure that they meet the criteria and don't contravene Wiki policies, as well as giving the editor(s) who created the item as much time as possible to polish and expand. Regards, Espresso Addict 15:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 16:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Bruno Maddox

Hello Awadewit: I see that you're quite busy but I was wondering if you would mind helping me out on two small points in the Bruno Maddox article. One, with the Themes section, and two, with the formatting of the Select Bibliography. I'm not sure if science and satire can be considered themes or not. Perhaps they are just topics. As well, I'm not sure if I should remove the name Bruno Maddox in the bibliography and replace with —. like you have done in List of works by Joseph Priestley. If the answer is yes, I should, then I'm going to make the same changes in List of works by William Monahan which is to be a Full Bibliography. Any advice you could offer would be very much appreciated. Take care, BillDeanCarter 13:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I occasionally number the list of works for a particular publication, to give a sense of the number of articles and that the list is complete. Bad/good idea?-BillDeanCarter 13:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• I will look at the article tomorrow, if that is ok. Awadewit | talk 15:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, thanks.-BillDeanCarter 01:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Georgetown University

You once passed Georgetown University's GA nomination. I've put the article up for Featured Article Candidate now, and was wondering if you had time to give it your thoughts again.--Patrick 01:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm terribly sorry, but I have too many other wiki-things and real-life-things to attend to right now to give the article a careful reading. Good luck with the FAC, though! Awadewit | talk 04:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Vacation? Wow!

Hi Awadewit!

Once again, I'm so impressed with you, this time because I realize how much you're getting done while on vacation. For my part, I may be in-and-out of contact for the next month or so, since the harvest season is beginning in earnest. But I sent you something this morning that I hope you'll find useful. Hoping you're having fun, Willow 14:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I hope you have fun harvesting. I'm about to start teaching myself, so I will be scarcer around here. Awadewit | talk 03:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A nice symmetry, no? one harvests while the other plants seeds. :) Harvesting is fun and delicious, but also hard on the back and hands. :( I've been harvesting all summer, of course, as different things came into season, but that trickle of treats is now becoming a flood that I have to preserve for winter somehow. ;)

Sounds like good exercise, though, at least! Awadewit | talk 14:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What will you be teaching? Do you have to prepare a lot? Write whenever it's convenient for you, and, ummm, sorry for all the typos lately. I need to learn to write after my coffee has begun working! ;) Oh, and I finished the The Golden Compass which you suggested; thank you! :) Willow 12:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm teaching a class called "Argumentative Writing". I will be teaching the students to write logical, well-supported and persuasive arguments. It is an elective class, which is good, since most of the students will be there by choice and will be juniors and seniors. There are a lot of papers to comment on and grade, though. Preparing will be a lot of work, I think, because I've never taught the course before. Once I have taught it, I will have a much better idea of what to do and what kinds of assignments and classroom activities are useful. Awadewit | talk 14:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize for typos! I usually don't even fix mine. Awadewit | talk 14:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope you liked The Golden Compass. I'm going to read the books again before the movie comes out. A marathon weekend or something. Awadewit | talk 14:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for the GA review

I wish to thank you very much for your thoughtful and extensive comments on Honoré de Balzac. You're absolutely right that we need to use a bio of the man for our main source; I was trying to do the best with what I had in the house, heh. The two sections in need of the most cleanup (Later Life and Legacy) are the two I left intact from the previous edition. Serves me right!

Thanks again. Hopefully I'll have time soon to do the work you indicated. I appreciate the time and consideration you put into the review. Cheers! -- Scartol 04:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As I begin work on the revision, I've found two questions. I hope I'm not bothering you with them. (If so, just say so and I'll look for the answers elsewhere.)

1. You said: "It would be very helpful to have a separate page listing all of Balzac's works with a selection listed on this page." But insofar as the vast majority of his works (all but half a dozen) are in La Comédie Humaine, do we really need an additional page?

1. I don't even think such a long list should appear in the La Comédie Humaine article; it takes over the article. Also, as you note "the vast majority" of Balzac's works are part of La Comédie Humaine - that does not mean all. A nice addition to wikipedia would be a complete list of all of his works. Awadewit | talk 23:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

1. You said: "There are a lot of very short paragraphs. It would help the reader follow the article better if these were either expanded or condensed with other paragraphs." Do you mean just the one-line paragraphs, or also the paragraphs with 2-3 sentences? To what extent is this a matter of stylistic preference? (As a writer, I tend to use more paragraphs rather than less, as I myself — as a reader — tend to get a little weary with long paragraphs.)

1. I was primarily referring to the one-sentence paragraphs. Two- and three-sentence paragraphs have to be evaluated individually; not all need to be expanded, but some do. I don't think that this request reflects a personal stylistic preference. The problem with short paragraphs is that, if they are truly focused on one topic (which the paragraphs in the Balzac article generally were), they don't tell the reader very much. Having one or two sentences on a topic makes the reader signals to the reader that the topic is not important. Therefore, I would think about the topic and ask myself if it merits more than a couple of sentences. Awadewit | talk 23:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. -- Scartol 05:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to be a broken record, but thanks again for your help. I've performed another (much larger) major revision of the Honoré de Balzac page, and left a note on its talk tab. Maybe you could be in charge of the re-review or opine about its current status? Cheers. — Scartol • Talk 20:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That was fast! I have tagged it for review at GAC. I promise I will get to it before the weekend is over. Awadewit | talk 20:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Splendid. I appreciate it. — Scartol • Talk 22:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Huzzah, my first GA! I appreciate your kind praise and support throughout this whole thing. Just a quick word on the style issues: It seems like I did what his biographers did (and I hate myself for apparently having unconsciously done) — write about Balzac like Balzac might. (I also left in some of what had been there before, under the "I don't want to be cruel and delete everything the previous author(s) wrote" philosophy; the "potboiler novels" section is an example.)

I will of course take your advice, tweak it some more, and see if we can't make it FA quality. Cheers. — Scartol • Talk 19:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your vibrant writing, but unfortunately poetic prose and encyclopedias don't seem to go together. If you want any help or advice on shepherding the article through FAC, let me know. I am guessing that you haven't done FAC before, since this is your first GA (of course, I could be totally wrong). I have gone through FAC a number of times and I would be happy to offer you tips or co-nominate the article with you (meaning I would help you address any comments aimed at improving the article). I am just so happy that a writer of the stature of Balzac now has such an excellent page. Awadewit | talk 20:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right – it's my first time through both the GA and FAC process. I'd be honored to have you co-nominate when we're ready.

I went through and made the changes you recommended. (Including a careful study of WP:MOS.) I made a few notes in my sandbox, triple-indented after your comments. (I also struck things as I completed them; I hope it's not too confusing.) Hopefully the quality of my previous edits will disavow any suspicion you might have about the rapidity of this round of corrections.

It all made perfect sense to me. Awadewit | talk 06:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the members of the Balzac project aren't too responsive (at least not in the week or so since I've reactivated my WP editing), I'm going to ask at WP:WPBIO for a review – maybe also at WP:FR.

Sounds like a good idea. Awadewit | talk 06:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Your support is really appreciated; as you can see on my wikithoughts page, editors and admins really make or break my spirit in places like this. I thank you once more for your detailed mentoring. — Scartol • Talk 17:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't let a few unfriendly editors get you down - I have found really wonderful people on wikipedia - people who are genuinely committed to learning - it's quite refreshing.

Having a co-nominator at FAC greatly reduces "wiki-stress"; it is also nice just to share the workload! Leave me a note whenever you want help, need to blow off steam or have some questions. I haven't been here that long, but I have done a fair bit of writing and peer-reviewing. Awadewit | talk 06:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

On Tuesday of next week I'm starting school (I'm a HS English teacher). My Wikipedia time will diminish rapidly once this happens, so I'd like to get any FAC procedures with Honoré de Balzac taken care of beforehand. Insofar as I've not gotten any responses to my request for reviews from either the Balzac WikiProject (which seems to consists only of myself at this point) nor WP:FR, nor (although it's only been one day) WP:BIOPR, I wonder if this can be taken as a sign that it's decently stable and that we might want to start the FAC process? I'll leave it to your more experienced judgment (I'll admit that I often suffer from Impatience Extremus), but I'm ready to get the ball rolling when you are.

I understand completely. I just started teaching yesterday (while I am writing my dissertation, I also teach composition courses at my university). The papers start coming in tomorrow... Despite the enormous amount of work about to descend upon you, I would wait on the FAC (there are no deadlines on wikipedia!). Like you, I am always anxious to move along to the next article, but FAC reviewers really like it when an article has gone through a peer review. The article itself will be better, too, after others have looked it over (as you are well aware). Unfortunately, as you can tell, peer review is really backlogged right now. I've had articles sit there for over a month without receiving a response. The best thing to do is to contact editors individually and ask them to review your article. Do you know any good reviewers? Awadewit | talk 01:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know this one guy named Awadewit who's really good, but he's swamped with other stuff right now. Non-humorous answer: Not really. JayHenry was nice to me once, so I suppose I have a foot in the door there; I'll ask him. Aside from that, I'm too new to know anyone here. You're right, though. I'll be patient and wait for a Peer Review. Thanks as always for your guidance and wisdom. — Scartol · Talk 02:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, thanks for the alternate proposal to my DYK on Lowell girls. An unexpectedly pleasant bump on the Watchlist. Cheers.. — Scartol · Talk 01:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to add in the phrase "nineteenth century", but I'm not sure I did it in an elegant manner. Awadewit | talk 01:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Florence Farr

Hi Awadewit! I've done a lot of work on the Florence Farr article since you gave it a 'B' rating, including peer review and nomination for 'A' class. Would you like to have another look at it? I'd appreciate your comments. Thanks. JMax555 15:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can give me a few days, I would be happy to look at it. Awadewit | talk 15:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd also like to tie in the article on First-wave_feminism to include Farr (I notice Mary Shelly is prominent there, and Farr is worth a mention too.) Any advice is most welcome. JMax555 18:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I would just add Farr in. Be aware, however, that when someone finally gets around to actually writing that page, they make take Farr (and Shelley, for that matter) out. Are you interested in working on First-wave feminism? I could be talked into working on that with someone in a few months...I am working on a "Jane Austen" project at the moment that is keeping me busy. Awadewit | talk 07:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Embellishments

Hi there. I hope my comments on that other page don't go down badly. (You did ask for them.) Meanwhile ... that article on Anna Laetitia Barbauld: visually, a bit monochrome, no? Shall we give her a little color? Happy editing! -- Hoary 09:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have just responded over at editorial review - thank you. That is just the kind of constructive criticism I was looking for.
• I have just deleted the infobox from Barbauld. Hopefully that will dissuade the flag-wavers. My god. Awadewit | talk 10:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking it well. Um, something I thought I'd add inconspicuously (feel free to delete this paragraph promptly with an uninformative edit summary): as I skimread your user page, I was struck by how informative it was. While I'm not interested, I think it would be easy for somebody else to find your identity. Would you be happy about this? -- Hoary 10:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's too late for that. Somebody found me simply by looking at the list of articles I wrote (eighteenth-century children's literature is a small field). Also, I chose a really silly username - I wasn't thinking at all. When I did get around to thinking about it, it was much too late. Oh well. I think the only way I could have truly hidden my identity was to have a username like "X" and not list the articles I have worked on or am interested in working on. Thanks for the advice, though! Awadewit | talk 10:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

suggestion--why not then do as I did, and simply say who you are? DGG (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Introduction to Evolution

Thank you for the review of Introduction to Evolution; more importantly, thank you for specific ways to improve it. Your time shall not be wasted; I can only hope that you will give it one more look when we have incorporated the changes and before we make a third attempt. Three failure banners at the top might set a record. Thank you again --Random Replicator 00:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Just let me know when you want me to look at it again. Awadewit | talk 03:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sycorax (Shakespeare)

I've got everything done here except the copyedit from another editor. The editor I originally asked recently got injured in a bicycle accident, and my backup is unresponsive and probably unavailable. I wouldn't normally ask this, but could you do the final copyedit before GA, given the circumstances? Wrad 20:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm just going to need a few days. The semester has just started for me and I need to figure out what is going on with the course I am teaching. Awadewit | talk 00:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude, but some professors have had students write new Wikipedia articles. The argument was, I think, that such an assignment is better than an essay sitting in a filing cabinet until it's destroyed. See User:Klnorman and e.g. Talk:Mental chronometry. –Outriggr ♠ 00:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be pretty good for the encyclopedia, but it could be bad for the student if, say, he picks an article that is being watched by a problem user and spends most of the time reverting silly changes. Wrad 01:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm teaching a class about argumentative writing, anyway. There is very little about finding reliable sources until the end of the course. Awadewit | talk 01:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A bit overdue

		The Working Woman's Barnstar
		For all your work in peer reviews - you have left high quality suggestions for many articles, allowing for a great deal of improvement across a wide variety of topics. I know your review was definitely a help to me, so thank you! Midnightdreary 13:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 30 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lowell girls, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Peta 23:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Copied to Scartol's talk page, as he expanded the article. Awadewit | talk 01:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it must have been because you wrote a good hook and I wrote a miserable crappy piece of garbage. Actually it looks like your instincts about adding the 19th century were right. Cheers. — Scartol · Talk 01:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone just couldn't tell you did all of the hard work (expanding the article and conceptualizing the statement) and I merely added "in the nineteenth century". :) (By the way, writing DYK statements is hard. I personally think it is an art form. Very few of them are good. I myself am constantly working on making mine better.) Awadewit | talk 07:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

MOS (list of works)

Awadewit, if you have the time would you mind chiming in at the Bruno Maddox FAC on two points concerning the selected bibliography in said article. It was brought up by Karanacs towards the very end of the FAC. One point is on the style which I believe you will agree is correct, but the other point is more debatable. It concerns the direct links into the articles in the selected bibliography. I find them very functional but I believe I am running up against Wikipedia policy.-BillDeanCarter 18:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Imperial triple crown jewels

I, Durova, award Awadewit Wikipedia's Imperial Triple Crown Jewels for many outstanding contributions to the encyclopedia. May you wear them well. Durova^Charge! 20:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Your Imperial Majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these jewels upon you in thanks for your help building Wikipedia. Durova^Charge! 20:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations :) You've more than earned it. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Troilus renominated for GA

Hi, Awadewit. I've renominated Troilus having, I believe, addressed all you points from last time around. I've put it through a spelling checker immediately before renomination.--Peter cohen 00:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you want me to review it for GA? Awadewit | talk 15:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please. You do seem to be one of the stricter reviewers, but I think it will get swifter attention this way. And I think I've dealt with your previous issues. BTW, I didn't notice you had commented here until I thought of checking today.--Peter cohen 15:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged the article for review at GAC. I will look at it over the next few days. Awadewit | talk 16:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Peter cohen 17:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your time and effort and for passing the article. It's strange but I went to the article to look at one of your points and have found yet more copyedits to do. I do intend to go to peer review and onto FAC, but I may stop off at the relevant projects that rate articles and try for A grade first. You are a strict reviewer, but the revision skills I'm having to practice here are also relevant to working on my PhD. And it will make FAC easier when I go for it.--Peter cohen 23:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I always find yet more copy edits - it's never ending! I think that by the time you get to FAC, you should have no trouble at all. I've also reaped great benefits for my dissertation by having so many different people critique my writing here. It's been wonderful. I glad you appreciated it. Awadewit | talk 18:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

FAC

Sure, it was on my list anyway. I didn't want you to feel I was crowding you and jumping on everything you do.

I've just reviewed Swedish emigration to the United States, and maybe you could have a look at that (please), if you have time. I expect you know, but user:Bishonen is one of those high-quality editors who became disillusioned with the FA process, so I'm thrilled that she's nominated this. She can be slightly prickly (if you read this, Bishonen, it's not a criticism—most of the best editors are) but is very professional. Awadewit-reviews-Bishonen would be Wikipedia at its strongest, I suspect.qp10qp 18:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I will look at it in the next few days. Since it just went up, I think I have time. Awadewit | talk 19:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, cheers. I just want good editors to feel that the process is worthwhile and helps improve articles. I know you've even had doubts about that yourself.qp10qp

I've been reading your article and listening to some jazz. I just love slow, careful reading in the late evening: it's one of my greatest pleasures in the world (I'm making up for the strain of university days, when they always gave us too much to do and so everything had to be rushed). Thank goodness for articles like yours, which I can get my teeth into.

By the way, something struck me when I read this: Alan Richardson, a scholar of eighteenth-century education, points out that if Wollstonecraft had not written "A Vindication of the Rights of Men" (1790) and "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman", it is unlikely that "Thoughts" would have been considered progressive or even worthy of notice. I wonder if there are actually some radical texts around which were one-offs, by people who perhaps didn't write anything else. I daresay that such a text would be difficult to identify; and then perhaps no one would be interested.

While I'm here chattering about nothing, have you come across this picture?

Élisabeth de Valois, by Sofonisba Anguissola, 1565

I think it's extraordinary, a masterpiece. I know that scholars like yourself are always rescuing women writers and artists from the shadows of history, but I was knocked out by this painting before I even realised it was by a woman. I am pretty much in love with all the Valois women anyway, but it's so wonderful to find one of them painted compassionately by someone other than the great François Clouet. As you probably know, this poor lovely woman was sent off to be Philip II of Spain's third wife at the age of sixteen; and she died in childbirth at twenty three. Look, she's just a child, cramped up in all that stiff finery. Thinking about this picture, I like to feel that Anguissola loved her.

Maybe I shouldn't waste my emotions on queens—after all, the poor had a much worse time (when Elisabeth met her mum, Catherine de' Medici, at Bayonne, six soldiers died waiting in the heat in full armour); but I can't help it. I've regressed to childhood, when I responded viscerally to historical figures and paintings of them.qp10qp 22:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Last year was my year to read. I had a dissertation fellowship, so I could immerse myself in research. It was wonderful. Now I am teaching again, so I have much less time to do that (and much less time to do wikipedia!) I do know exactly what you mean about the rushing. However, I understand their point of view - there is so much I don't know!

I wonder if there are actually some radical texts around which were one-offs, by people who perhaps didn't write anything else. I daresay that such a text would be difficult to identify; and then perhaps no one would be interested. - Undoubtedly, this is true. Whenever an author is unidentifiable, texts seem to be less interesting to those in English literature (at least, post-Middle Ages). I am thinking of a lot of 19c British and American journalism, for example, that could fall into the category. I always wonder what books, pamphlets, paintings, etc. we don't have anymore.

I tend to find political authors the most fascinating, people like Thomas Paine, Joseph Priestley (I know it's long - I'm working on it), Wollstonecraft, Anna Laetitia Barbauld, Hannah More - people who were driven to write during extraordinary political times. I am less interested in the carefully crafted poem or novel and more interested in the heat-of-the-moment pamphlet or tract. :)

I don't think that there is anything wrong in appreciating the beauty of the painting, despite the oppressed poor. One wonders, though, if you are appreciate Valois's beauty or the painting's beauty. To me, she looks like a beautiful carpet (in a good way!). There are marvelous Renaissance portraits of people in fabulous brocades, silks, and satins and the painting is more about the rich fabrics (fabric=wealth) than about the person (I am still looking for the image I want to post for this). I see a lot of that here. I am going to reveal my ignorance (eek), but why does the file say "Isabel" but your caption says "Elisabeth"? Awadewit | talk 06:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't write that caption, and I wouldn't have the accent on Elisabeth. Isabel is Spanish for Elisabeth, and so Elizabeth I of England is known there as Isabel I de Inglaterra.

What I find beautiful is that the Anguissola portrait of Elisabeth is compassionate, whereas the other Spanish portraits of her, such as the Mor, are not. Although I find the Valois women beautiful, I don't think they actually were: it's just me, I expect! And, yes, it depends on the painting. I hope I'm not reading too much into the painting, but the fact that this girl is trussed up in a carpet is part of what moves me about it. She's in a prison, and the prison is Spain. Anguisssola was also her attendant and also a foreigner: I think she was quietly making a point. These clothes are very Spanish—just the opposite of the frivolous French style Elisabeth grew up with. That thing she's holding is a "flea fur", designed to attract fleas away from the skin. What a vile idea. It's hard to imagine a world without sprays, etc. I imagine the palaces were riddled with fleas. And fancy having to wear a get-up like that in Spain, of all countries.qp10qp 15:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I would obviously have to do more research on this painting before saying much (who commissioned it, for example?), but I'm not sure it is a criticism of the prison that she is in (I'm not sure a woman's position was often viewed or, more importantly, portrayed that way). To me, her wealth does not look like a prison, it looks like it transcends her humanity and will live on without her (that is how I interpret the disjunction between her body and the clothing - she doesn't seem comfortable in the dress, does she?) Her "position" is solid while she is ephemeral.

A "flea fur"? Fabulous! I definitely think you should write a little article on that and put it up for "DYK". I'm going to use that as my "fun fact" for the day in my class next Tuesday. (I do this little icebreaker at the beginning of each class where the students and I share little interesting things we have learned over the course of the week.) Awadewit | talk 17:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

End of WP:Bio assessment drive

I have reraised the issue (see towards the bottom) as to whether assessors should receive all the awards they qualify for or only the highest one. Your input is appreciated. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 15:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Introduction to Evolution

I was hoping you might look over the Introduction to Evolution Article. I think I have addressed all of your suggestions; at least to the best of my abilities. A copy of your list is on the discussion page which I systematically crossed off the suggestions I was able to address and left a few notes here and there for others should they want to take up the banner. It is not a high interest article like the main entry Evolution; so the communal mind represents a realitively small pool. We did manage to get the key concepts embedded in the text; which I feel was a dramatic improvement. Thank you for all your help. --Random Replicator 00:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you wait a week? I am quite busy at the moment, but would be happy to reread the page. Awadewit | talk 03:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I requested peer review; but as of date there has been only one commentary. I'm in no hurry so whenever you can vist it will be fine. --Random Replicator 18:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review seems to be severely backlogged. I've had sit there for a month, unfortunately. I will be looking at introduction to evolution soon. Awadewit | talk 18:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Empires

Would anyone like to comment on this? --Joopercoopers 11:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism at History of American football

The problem you saw with the first sentance was part of a spate of vandalism (check the page history). Another user quickly reverted it; you must have read it between the vandalism and the reversion. Could you reread the article and ammend your comments at the FAC? Thanks. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Feminism

Hi Awadewit. First off let me say 'thank you' for the advice you left on the feminism talk page about its good article nomination. I think I have addressed many of the points you detailed that were holding the page back from achieving GA status. The lead of the article is still an issue, and the section on 'second wave feminism' needs some more work too. I was just wondering if you could have a quick look at the page to check if it's going in the right direction? I realize that this is an imposition but Id be much obliged if you'd take a look--Cailil ^talk 22:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a sizable list of articles building up to look at now, but I would really like to give this one some close attention since it is so important. Can you wait a week or so? Awadewit | talk 00:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine Awadewit, hopefully I'll have made some more improvements by then. Thanks for considering it--Cailil ^talk 12:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

A Huge Favor: Harold Pinter

Hi Awadewit (I'm contacting Willow as well)...

Oh no! Are you still on vacation? :-)

...so we've been looking at this article for some time now, & we would like to have input from editors who are more acculturated to the Literature way of looking at things... would you mind taking a look at Harold Pinter? It would be a huge favor to NYScholar, LaraLove & me. Thanks!! -- Ling.Nut 00:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't it have been quickfailed? Among other things, there are quotations lacking citations. Awadewit | talk 00:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Errm, it's a long story. The quotations lacking citations.. Lara thought so too but I think it's a formatting issue; the cites are obscured. It's also possible that I disturbed some attribution with my recent edits (though I tried not to). -- Ling.Nut 01:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Awadewit | talk 18:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Habits (psychology)

My intent is to include some discussion of the pre-history of the term. My interest is in connecting popular and older thought on psychological subject matter to some of the current discussion by using ordinary language words like "habit" as a bridge. I'll certainly be linking to Locke in some way. I will probably do something similar with the word "association". Sorry about the link. Thanks for bringing the style issue up. I'll try to find where it's discussed. DCDuring 22:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Once that material is in place, I would have no trouble linking to the page using a non-quoted word. (I see that the page is "under construction". I would suggest constructing it on one of your user subpages and then pasting it into the real page. I once tried to do what you are doing, but was told that that I couldn't have empty sections.) Awadewit | talk 18:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in the discussion on this very point. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (links) DCDuring 23:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am interested, but I'm afraid that I just don't have the time right now to engage in these debates. Awadewit | talk 18:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thoughts on the Education of Daughters FAC

Apologies for failing to respond to your note on the FAC page -- I was away from my computer and have only just returned. I'm glad the lack of my formal support vote didn't affect the promotion of this excellent article. Regards, Espresso Addict 16:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note here. Sometimes wikipace is fast. :) Awadewit | talk 18:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on the FA for this. Huzzah! I also hope your health situation isn't too bad. — Scartol · Talk 22:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not doing that bad - just a flu I caught from my students. Typical at the beginning of the year, as you know. Awadewit | talk 22:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No! (covers mouth with shirt) You're not going to infect me! Why do you diseased people keep coming into school!? Hey, thanks for adding me as a good editor. I was worried you might make a special Bad Editors list after my inane comments on the Wollstonecraft thing.. =) — Scartol · Talk 00:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, Dear Awadewit. I hope you feel better soon. I'm so happy you finally got the triple crown. You deserved it. Now get better, pronto! :) - Jeeny ^Talk 00:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Awadewit | talk 04:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

harold pinter

thanks for your help. I'm in a library & only have a few minutes access. Thanks again so much for all your help. I dunno where it will go from here but.. um.. five editors have helped (six if WillowW has) and he has rec'd far more attention than average (tho admittedly the first editor was a newbie). I dunno what to do .. I don't know if there IS anything else I can do... thanks again!!!! -- Ling.Nut 20:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this is not the right moment, but if anyone can work magic, it is Willow. Awadewit | talk 05:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article

Congrats on getting 'Thoughts on the Education of Daughters' through FA. A very nicely written article. It's also good to see someone simultaneously so willing to work with others' criticism (no matter how 'lay' they may be ;-)) but also sticking on points they feel are important. I get rather worried by editors who leap to make any change demanded by a reviewer, it makes me wonder how much thought went into the previous version :D. Good luck with the rest of the Wollstonecraft project. 4u1e 09:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree with you about those who rush to change anything. Dashes are one thing... Awadewit | talk 23:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Bits and pieces

Your detailed comments at Swedish emigration were very valuable; it's infuriating when articles get promoted before all the issues have been addressed, though.

Oh, I meant to tell you that I've had a lightbulb moment about FA comments. If one opposes or supports decisively, any supplementary comments on the FAC page are, in a way, redundant: they are actually editing issues. So in future, I am going to post them on the talk page. And I realised that I found it much more relaxing talking about Thoughts on the talk page.

• I agree. That is why I split my comments at Swedish immigration (I really do think it should be "immigration"!). Good idea. Awadewit | talk 04:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope you are getting better. But, if I may say so, I don't believe you caught that flu from students; it sounds to me like a case of scholar's flu, by which viruses jump from book to scholar, scholar to book, and so forth, through the ages. So it might even be possible that you've caught a bug from Mary Wollstonecraft herself. How cool would that be? I hope the notion makes you feel better.qp10qp 23:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Since people leave food in books, that is entirely possible. :) Awadewit | talk 04:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Scientific peer review

Have you considered looking elsewhere than GAC for a review of the chemistry in Joseph Priestley? There is Wikipedia:Scientific peer review, though I doubt it's too busy. If you do so, let me know and I'll pass the Good Article nomination. Feel better soon, –Outriggr § 23:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I think I'll do just that. I would, of course, appreciate the GA pass. I have a feeling it might sit there for a very long time. Awadewit | talk 04:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Are you OK with its placement under "Religious figures and leaders"? Swedenborg is there. –Outriggr § 04:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Priestley always thought of himself as a theologian first. Awadewit | talk 04:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

re: Just trying to help out

Not intruding at all! I've actually wanted to make your wiki-acquaintance for some time — ever since reading your great Mary Wollstonecraft FAs. I am miffed, yes, about the library not letting me check out books (and I'm at the $200 a year donation level to the library, mind you), but I have some friends who are still students and I've been able to bully them into letting me use their student IDs. Sadly I'm not a "state resident" which is part of my problem.. Anyways... I hope we get a chance to collaborate on something some day. Cheers! --JayHenry 05:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice to meet you as well. Your hippo articles are great! It must have been fun looking at those pictures while you were editing. Awadewit | talk 05:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)