User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Nixon in China

Sure, happy to corroborate. I am gearing up to start preparing the man himself for FA. Happyme22 seems inactive these days, but I'll email him. I'll have the time to work on it in July/early August I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Great. I have another Mahler-related article to do in May, then a quirky project that got pushed aside by Gustav, but after that I can organise my priorities to suit you, but July-August looks good. I've got some material on Adams, and I'll collect more general stuff over the next weeks. Brianboulton (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Washington Opera has archives I can consult, as the Kennedy Center was one of the co-commissioners.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I will get to Mahler if I am not too tired today, else tomorrow. After Whitlam, btw, 1975 Australian constitutional crisis is about half done. I will be home most of May, I'd like to bat out two or three articles and will probably do Alec Home then. July is the best time for Nixon in China, and I think I will also tackle the man himself. That is just such a big project and will be so controversial that it may take me two or three tries to get it through FAC since people have irreconcilable views about him, and I hope the delegates will be indulgent.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

July will suit me very well for N in C. I'm going to have to buy a disc and listen to the bloody thing – minimalism is not my c of t. Brianboulton (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I will too. I think I've heard excerpts on the radio, but was not enamoured of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification of FAR on article you reviewed

Please see here.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

By the time I got to this the matter had been resolved, quite rightly, too. Brianboulton (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I rarely get angry on Wikipedia, but that one really pissed me off.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Athletic Bilbao players

From PR you said the following:

• "General point on article title: The title you have chosen suggests a complete listing of the club's players, but the list is limited to those with 200 or more appearances, a fact only established in the note just before the table, and then not explained. The title needs amending, possibly to "List of notable Athletic Bilbao players", and there should be a rationale for the cutoff point of 200."
  • Reply: This is custom for "List of X players". Rationale not expected as it is an arbitrary cut-off, see e.g. List of Manchester United players
  • Is this explanation satisfactory? Sandman888 (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
    • The Manchester United article states, immediately under the title, that the list is of players with 100+ appearances for the club, so readers know immediately what the list is. If you were to add a similar note to the Bilbao article, that would avoid the need to change the title. Your chosen cutoff is 200 appearances; I'm not really questioning your decision, just wondered if there was an explanation, e.g. why you didn't follow the Man Utd precedent? Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Cedars

Thank you for your work on the lead in Battle of the Cedars. Were you planning on copyediting the article further? (If so, thank you you in advance.) Magic♪piano 16:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I plan to leave a few comments shortly. Whether I can copyedit the whole thing I'm not sure but I'll try and give the article some time (it's waited long enough). Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I responded to your issues, but could use some guidance on how best to deal with the map. If you can give some more time to this, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Magic♪piano 14:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

il ritorno successivo d'Ulisse in patria

I see ENO are scheduling the piece at the Young Vic this season here. (I'll opt for their Mikado myself, but chacun à son gout.) - Tim riley (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I don't think I'll be at either, as it happens, but I might be tempted by Don Giovanni. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Middlesex (novel)

Hi, Brian. I have noticed that you are experienced with FAC. Would you take a look at Middlesex (novel) and see if there are any major issues that would prevent it from passing FA? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to look at this, but it may be a few days before I can. I don't want to hold you up, but if you aren't in a particular hurry I will get to it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in a particular hurry, so feel free to take a week or two to review the article. Best, Cunard (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I've located an in-depth source about Middlesex and over the next few days will be expanding the article to include the source's commentary. Please hold off on looking at the article until next week. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That suits my timetable too. Give me a ping when you're through. Brianboulton (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added a subsection for "The American Dream" as a theme, as well as a paragraph in the style section about the narrator being unreliable. I'm done with the expansion. Cunard (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Adrian Boult

Article now promoted. I am greatly indebted for your consistent help. At your service - as always - for any reciprocal reviewing. - Tim riley (talk)

Just seen it, was about to leave a congratulatory message on your talkpage. Well done, indeed; and now, what about Barbirolli? Definitely worth a go, with very little extra work I believe. Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps - and you are truly most kind! But I am now scheming to rival your comprehensive Gustav Mahler revamp with a similar one for Edward Elgar (whose article is me judice in need of attention) - so look out! - Tim riley (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Idea

What do you think about creating an article for Mahler's composition hut in Worthersee like Rachmaninoff's Villa Senar or Ivanovka? Here you have info: [1]. OboeCrack (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It is an idea, if you wish to pursue it, but I have too many current projects, and reviewing duties, to be involved with it myself. Brianboulton (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please tell me how can I name the article about the composition hut? Do you remeber the e-mail I sent you. I decided to upload the photos myseld, in order to ilustrate the article: here is my little contribution to Mahler:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

OboeCrack (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I imagine you could call the article "Mahler composition hut, Worthersee". I'll certainly look at it when it's done. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

PR backlog

I like your wording, only change I would make is to link to the backlog page in the notice. I have been looking for a good how to do PR article and not found anything. The closest I know of is the Dispatch piece we were working on at User:Ruhrfisch/Dispatch - this could be rewritten without too much trouble as a how to (or at least things to look for) article.

Gustav Mahler is looking very good at FAC. I think the WikiCup and school projects have increased the PR load. I confess I just listed Clemuel Ricketts Mansion there too - sorry. Will try to review more too, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

PS I think it might help to post your comments and mine on the PR talk page as a heads up to others.

A question

First of all I would like to thank you for taking on the Nobel Prize peer review, very kind! Secondly I would like to ask you a completely unrelated question (which I hoped you could answer since you seem to be quite well versed in Wikipedia's ways.). I am currently also working on Carl Linnaeus and when during my research I noticed that he had several very notable disciples (called Apostles) such as Carl Peter Thunberg. There is, however, currently no Apostles of Linnaeus or Linnaeus' Apostles article, but I would very much like to write one, perhaps in style with your Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration article. Do you think it would be kept or would it be removed directly?

I am very happy for any answer I can get! Esuzu (talk • contribs) 20:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• I can't imagine that it would be deleted. The very mention of Linnaeus in the title announces the article's notability, so I'm sure the article would be kept. Brianboulton (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much! Much appreciated. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 21:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Prize Peer Review

I saw the Peer Review of the Nobel Prize was closed recently. I know I can not renominate it until 14 days have passed but I was wondering if you would like to help by continuing the peer review in a less "official" way? Perhaps at the Nobel Prize talk page or so? I could really need some help with the prose etc and would be prepared to co-nominate it to FA if I can get help improving prose etc. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 21:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wilfred Rhodes and Douglas Jardine

Hello. Just to let you know I have put up Wilfred Rhodes up at FAC. Any comments would be appreciated! Also, I've put Douglas Jardine at peer review and would be very grateful if you could have a look. Thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I raided your sandbox

And read your forthcoming comments on Gough, so far as you've gotten. I only made two changes (the first two FAC comments), and will leave the others until you formally post. I should add that in response to your question, yes, the ALP would have been very happy to abolish the Senate and the Constitution in the 1940s. They did not because first, there was a war on for part of the time, which rather cramped their style, and the failure of the 1944 referendum which would have given considerably more power to the Federal government made it clear it wasn't on, so Chifley, no fool he, put them on the back burner. He was less of an ideologue from what I've been able to learn than his conference. Remember that for an amendment to pass in Australia, it must be approved by a majority of voters overall, and a majority of voters in a majority of the states. And regarding the 2/3 of a century bit, that phrasing seemed the best way of making it clear that Margaret Whitlam remains alive. Sorry about peeking.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've posted my stuff anyway, some to the FAC page, nitpicks to the talkpage. Feel free to peek in my sandboxes. There's stuff in there that's been there so long I've forgotten why I put it there in the first place. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what I did was checked your contributions. I figured that since you were making changes to the Whitlam article, the comments had to be going someplace!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. Congrats!

Congrats on Mahler promotion! You might want to add it to the template on the talk page, WT:TFA/R. At least four points.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

My congratulations too - it figures with Mahler the FAC comments would be longer than average (my feeble attempt at a long symphonies joke) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Same here—congratulations on a well-deserved promotion. With as much commentary as you received, should we call the FAC for Mahler the "FAC of a Thousand"? (Another long symphony joke, this one at the expense of the Mahler Eighth.) Jonyungk (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The promotion went through a lot faster than I'd anticipated. Knowing that people have strong feelings about Mahler, I was prepared for a much more contentious FAC. As it is, thanks to the support of you guys and others, it had a much smoother ride. Now for the front page, 7 July. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Gustav Mahler

Hi Brianboulton! Congrats on passing the article first of all. Authority control is a tool for unambiguous allocation. On the German Wiki authority control was extremely successful in that it allowed for the correct sorting of 100.000 pictures from the German Federal Archives to their respective biography articles - this info is valuable for the English Wiki as well (it's added to bio articles alongside Persondata in the German Wiki). Authority control is also an independent source for basic data about people. I will make sure that the Library of Congress Control Number is put first in the English version from now on since that one will be the most useful for English language readers. And btw I just listened to my first CD of Gustav Mahler music, Das Lied von der Erde, found it in an old box today. I blame you :) Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. If you are new to Mahler, Das Lied von der Erde isn't really the best way to start. I'd recommend Symphonies 1, 2 or 4, though. Then I'm sure you'll long for more. Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation. Hekerui (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hugely pleased and not in the least surprised to see the article promoted to its richly-merited FA status. - Tim riley (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Much thanks due to tireless reviewers such as yourself. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on, and thanks for, this FA and for your continued excellent contributions. You've built an impressive body of work in an area where there had not been much top quality content! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Congrats and keep up the excellent work! When you are taking it to the main page candidacy, drop me a line so that I can support it being displayed then. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Birmingham Americans

Thanks for your thorough and detailed review of Birmingham Americans. While I've been creating content for three years, this is the first article I intend to push through to FA status. I've incorporated all of your suggestions but still have a couple of questions and would appreciate another moment of your time to review my comments. - Dravecky (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Fremont Emancipation review

Just wanted to thank you for the peer review of Fremont Emancipation. I've been rather tied up this week but I intend to make your suggested changes in the next couple of days. Thanks again! Historical Perspective (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Been very busy in the real world, but finally got around to making your suggested edits. You can check my comments here. Thanks again very much for the review. Best, Historical Perspective (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Rhodes

Thanks for the copy-edits; huge, huge help. I've looked over them and you've done a great job; none of them take away from the article, but I was probably too close to see them. Hopefully, this will help it to pass. Cheers. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed your final concerns, all except the number of references, which I've commented on in the review. Thanks again. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Review of Middlesex (novel)

I finished addressing your review of Middlesex (novel) at Talk:Middlesex (novel)#Some general (and hopefully useful) comments and have posed some questions about rephrasing and sources. Thank you for your help! Cunard (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Park Grill/archive1‎

Are you watching Wikipedia:Peer review/Park Grill/archive1‎?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

??--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• • What's with the ??? I posted extra comments a couple of days back. Unless you tell me what you want me to watch I don't know what you're asking. Brianboulton (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Didn't mean to be rude. I was just being lazy. Actually. I still don't know if you are watching. The editor is actively responding this weekend. I just never figured out if you are watching.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I normally rely on pings to alert me on peer reviews. Since I do about six of these a week (not to mention FACs as well) I can't watch them all, but I usually respond quickly when contacted. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes. I know you do a lot of them and get to them quickly. Keep up the good work. I just didn't know if you watched. Well. He is hard at work on your issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
          • The review is in need of feedback now. If you get a chance take a look.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Brian, let me be clear about my interest. The Millennium Park WP:FT is going to be demoted if Park Grill does not get cleaned up quickly and promoted to WP:GA. On June 13 it will be demoted. An editor is trying to clean it up and he needs your feedback. Keep in mind that after it makes GA, the project needs 10-14 days to actually add it to the topic. Thus, we need it to make GA by the end of the month. This PR is in need of prompt responses from you.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's on my to-do list, and I will get to it as soon as possible bearing in mind the urgency - of which I wasn't previously aware. Brianboulton (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Washington & Jefferson Presidents football/archive1

Thanks!--GrapedApe (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources reviews at FAC

Brian, thanks for letting me know. Like you, I'll do the best I can. I have for a long time noted the need for more reviewers at FAC; I slip away from PR and other projects to help out there from time to time, and I'd like to do more. Alas, it's impossible to be in two places at once. I will keep plugging away at PR. Finetooth (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

My thanks too - I review some at FAC and will start looking more closely at sources there now. I would be glad to take over the backlog list maintenance if needed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Offfer noted with thanks, but let's see how things go. I shall be balancing three plates for the moment: Mahler's Eighth Symphony, Peer Review and FAC source reviews. The Mahler Mark II will be over by the end of the month, and I shall do fewer general FAC reviews, so maybe the additional workload won't be too much. Brianboulton (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: More Mahler

Brian, it should be no problem since Mahler (70 yr pma) wrote the score and it was performed (hence, published since the scores must be given to the orchestras and performed) before 1923. Jappalang (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The scores should be {{PD-1923}} and {{PD-old}}; one for their status in US and the other for their country of origin (Austria). As for the ticket, just {{PD-1923}} would do fine for the moment (it might also be PD in its country of origin, but that needs further investigation). Jappalang (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Accessdates on hardprint sources

Brian, since you're doing source checks in Ealdgyth's absense (thanks !!), you may want to track this down (or just take my word for it-- I hate keeping up with the ever-changing cite templates, et al, but somehow that got changed somewhere along the way). Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'll take your word for it. It's something which I've always done myself, but if it's not required, fair enough. It will take me a while to do this job with the speed and confidence of the Blessed Ealdgyth, but I'll learn. Brianboulton (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Does that mean I'm on my way to sainthood? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    • God, I hope not. The world needs confidently naughty women like you, SandyG, Karanacs ... Malleus Fatuorum 20:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Iravan/archive1

Thanks for your comments. Please check if your concerns about the reference have been addressed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The Author's Farce

I'm sorry to be a pain in the proverbial Brian, but could you possibly highlight those of your issues you think are yet to be resolved? I'm no expert on 18th-century literature, or indeed literature of any period, but I'm determined to do what I can to help this through FAC, as a kind of "thank you" to Ottava. Anyway, the article has already been much improved by your comments and those of Awadewit, so it's already a win. Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Japanese battleship Tosa

Thank you for checking the sources! If you are going to move into Ealdgyth's old role, ping me if ever run into difficulty and need someone to check a FAC's sources—I used to do it all the time for MILHIST's A-class reviews and still do it occasionally for FAR. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Because source reviews haven't been done at FAC for a while there's a big backlog there. Any help you can give in clearing this would be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008

At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008/archive1 you commented that you would look at the article if it had a peer review. This is a notification that a peer review has been opened here. Your input would be greatly appreciated. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Vengeance (2009 film)

Brian, I have read your review that you made of Vengeance last year, and I was hoping you could revisit the page to see how I can further improve the article. I would greatly appreciate your help. FrankRizzo2006 (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I would e happy to do this, but I may not get to it for several days. I'll put it on my "tp do" list, but you may get quicker attention if you nominate the article for a second peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

American Idiot (musical)

Thanks for your review of this article. It was very helpful. I think I've managed to implement most of your suggestions. If you have any other comments, I'd appreciate them. :) Fryede (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have addressed most of the concerns I expressed at the peer review. I don't have time for a detailed readthrough, but certainly the article is improving and I am glad to see that you are still working on it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No Line on the Horizon FAC

Hi there, thanks for your comments regarding No Line on the Horizon at the FAC. I've responded to your query regarding the use of links in the ref titles. I hope that you can revisit your comments shortly. Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom

• Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thanks for offering to write a peer review of the prerogative article. I look forward to your feedback! AGK 00:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24