User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 94
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Brianboulton. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 90 | ← | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | Archive 94 |
Books and Bytes - Issue 13
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)
- New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
- Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
- Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
- Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 September 2015
- Recent research: Wiktionary special; newbies, conflict and tolerance; Is Wikipedia's search function inferior?
- Tech news: Tech news in brief
Bellingham-Perceval 1997
- When he lost his seat in 1997–he regained it in 2001—his narrow defeat was thought to arise from the intervention in the election of Robert Percival, the candidate for the Referendum Party who, despite the different spelling, was a descendent of the Perceval family. The defeat was reported in the media as a belated form of revenge.<Crick 2012>
Peer review @ Wikipedia:Peer review/Norodom Ranariddh/archive1
Dear Brian, it was nice to hear from you. Not to worry, I was actually trying to identify and copyediting the rest of the article on ambiguous prose which you have pointed out so far. I have made some copyedits, and hopefully the prose should appear smoother now...
I hope you can skip the subsection Conflict escalation & 1997 clashes for now, as I am thinking of introducing some new, impt content from the readings. It would be good if you can continue on from the section Continued leadership in FUNCINPEC (1997-2006)...
As we come to Wikipedia on a voluntary basis, I understand that it would not always be possible for editors to check in continuously on a 365-day basis. :) As for me, I would probably be offline for the rest of the week to attend to academic matters. I do hope though, that the Peer Review maybe concluded by November so that it can be ready for FAC in December. Your comments so far have indeed helped me to relook at the article prose and content critically, and I appreciate your contributions. Hope to hear from you when you are back :) Mr Tan (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Dear Brian, hope you had a good holiday :) I hope you can give me further advice to improve some sections of the article on Peer Review. I may or may not drop by Wiki over the next few days, depending on whether I have extra free time. I will drop by at this Peer Review at the first instance though, when I come to Wiki. It"ll be good if you can take a look at multiple sections (or subsections) if you have the time. Please do not hesitate to let me know if you are unable to take assist – no obligations and compulsions – but definitely it"ll be great to hear from you. Hope to see you around and take care :D Mr Tan (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the inputs! I am now in the process of looking through at your recommendations, though I can't promise a very speedy response due to real-life commitments. Please feel free to review subsequent sections if time on your side permits - no need to wait for me to complete looking through one section if I have not touched/finished - but please don't feel pressured or obliged if you are unable to do so. (I probably won't delay more than a couple of days in any case) Thanks in advance! Mr Tan (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Out of action
 | I shall be out of communication until Friday 9 October – Thursday evening if I'm lucky. I'll deal with outstanding requests, messages etc as soon as I can. |
Millie Toole's biography of Bessie Braddock
As requested, I have had a good look through this volume at the British Library, and I earnestly counsel against spending your money on a second-hand copy. I don't go so far as to say the book isn't a WP:RS, and I have no reason to think it gets the facts wrong. But the prose is the deepest purple and the tone gushing. If you want the domestic minutiae of Bessie's life (e.g. that her father was deaf (and who could blame him?)) the book will oblige, but as a source for a considered life-and-career article I don't recommend it. Tim riley talk 17:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Tim. What you say more or less confirms the impression I've gained from the odd snippets of text that I've seen. I can think of better ways of spending 20 quid – a decent bottle in the Wehwalt Arms, for example. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Welcome back. I trust is all well. Following the peer review, to which you kindly contributed, I have Sir Arnold up to FAC. If you have time and inclination to look in, your comments will be most welcome. – Tim riley talk 12:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 07 October 2015
- Op-ed: Walled gardens of corruption
- Traffic report: Reality is for losers
- Featured content: This Week's Featured Content
- Arbitration report: Warning: Contains GMOs
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
TFA Baton
We're scheduled through to the end of the month, and all of the pages have been updated. I'm passing the baton on to you. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Received with thanks and appreciation. Brianboulton (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
PR request
Hi, as someone who helped me achieve my first FAC can you offer a review for this article? —Vensatry (ping) 07:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not at present, I'm afraid. Sorry. Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, but feel free to give a small copy-edit (if you think it's necessary) when you're free. —Vensatry (ping) 05:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
HMS Phoebe
Hi Brian. Some family research, we've found the name of the ancestor who sailed on HMS Phoebe (1795) and fought in the Battle of Trafalgar. John Anderson, and he was from Edinburgh originally but was later a Greenwich Pensioner, which I believe were retired sailors living in London. Interesting stuff! I was wondering if I could tempt you, Cliftonian or anybody else here into improving the HMS Phoebe article? Or is it only ships gone AWOL which interest you ;-)? It would really be quite something to read a great article on that ship and what he might have experienced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- That is an interesting family connection. I'm probably not the best-equipped editor to improve the article, which is very short on citations. I don't have any relevant sources, and would have to work from scratch. Also, I'm pretty busy with other commitments. Quite happy to act in the role of reviewer, copyeditor, etc, when the time is ripe. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
TFA
[1] - I think this should be 2 November, not 11 November. I would have changed it, but it says do not modify. BTW, thank you for putting this up. BollyJeff | talk 22:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- My mistake - typed the month instead of the day! Corrected now; thanks for spotting it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
India House FAC
Hi Brian, thanks for your comments in the India House FAC. I have addressed the concerns you raised.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 09:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 October 2015
- WikiConference report: US gathering sees speeches from Andrew Lih, AfroCrowd, and the Archivist of the United States
- News and notes: 2015–2016 Q1 fundraising update sparks mailing list debate
- Traffic report: Screens, Sport, Reddit, and Death
- Featured content: A fistful of dollars
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
Marilyn Monroe
Hi, any chance you could give this a review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Marilyn Monroe/archive1? A core article if ever there was one which really needs a good review.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is certainly an important article, and I will do my best to review it soon. Brianboulton (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Vaughan Williams
You were kind enough to say on my talk page that you wanted me to keep you in touch with my overhaul of RVW. It's like this: I had been hoping – for more than a year, I think – to work on VW with Alfie Tucker, but the demands of real life (earning a living and other frivolities) have made him pretty much unavailable for Wikipedian duties, and I have finally decided to press on solo. (I mean, if Bax, God save us, gets to FA, as I hope he will, Uncle Ralph really mustn't be left to languish with the fairly dismal article he has now.) I've asked Alfie to look in at the work in progress in my sandpit, and invited him to add or amend ad lib if time permits. As a collaborator on Holst, Delius and Britten et al you could not be more welcome to comment, and whether you like to pitch in now or wait till the formal peer review I leave entirely to you. – Tim riley talk 16:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- I will be delighted to help, but I'll probably wait for the peer review; I have a lot going on at the moment. I'm TFA scheduling, I have prior review commitments (see Marilyn, above), and Bessie proceeds glacially and tiresomely. Plus the little matter of Spencer Perceval deceased. Oh, and I'm going to Rome the week after next. Brianboulton (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
RVW again
Ralph Vaughan Williams is now at peer review. If you can look in, as adumbrated above, any comments will be gratefully received. There is absolutely no hurry on this, – Tim riley talk 18:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'll be there. According to Kenneth Morgan's biography of Michael Foot, during the war the 72-year-old RVW groped Jill Craigie, the future Mrs Foot. I bet that's not in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Could you look at this, presently at FAC? Do not fear that this will be the first of a lengthy series on medals produced by the US Mint, which are legion, but this one (at least at one time) had special status. I started it on a whim, and it came out surprisingly well despite the fact that few of my standard references cover it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I had not noticed this - I'll get to it shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
PR @ Norodom Ranariddh
Thank you! I don't have much time at this immediate point of time to look through your comments, but will do so over the next 2 weeks so that I can implement changes/improvements qualitatively. After which, allow me to seek a final overall opinion from you on the state of the article by then. I plan to put this up for FAC in early December–should not be an issue based on the pace things have gone so far. I will drop another message on your Talk page when the time comes. Thank you! Mr Tan (talk) 08:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 October 2015
- Editorial: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching
- In the media: "Wikipedia's hostility to women"
- Special report: One year of GamerGate, or how I learned to stop worrying and love bare rule-level consensus
- Featured content: A more balanced week
- Arbitration report: Four ArbCom cases ongoing
- Traffic report: Hiding under the covers of the Internet
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
L'Affaire Thorpe
Hello, I'm Frédéric, one of the contributors on the French Wikipedia, and I'm writing to let you know that I came across the article about the Thorpe affair, which I found very interesting and well-written, definitely worth its FA star! So I decided to translate it into French, since there's hardly any material at all written in French about this very strange case. The article is now finished, and I will soon try to suggest it as a "good article". As you may see, I have kept very close to the text, but I've made quite a number of different choices for the pictures (esp. since most were not available on Commons, which we have to use on WP FR). Anyway, I wanted to thank you as (I think) the main contributor, and also all the other editors on this article! Best regards, --Frédéric-FR (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Merci – très intéressant; les images sont exceptionelle! Malheureusement, je ne peux pas lire le français. Salutations cordiales. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Cutting the cloth
Hi Brian. Length difficulties with Frank Sinatra. Tried to make it comprehensive, enough material on him to sink a battleship. Though I've split numerous sections and condensed down it's difficult to really know where I can chop much material. It's pretty massive, very comparable to Ronald Reagan FA, somebody said about 81kb and 13,700 words before but I just got a massive 96 kb readable prose and 16,000 odd words, you might want to check. I've already cut about 35kb in total I think during various cutting stages already, see the early life summary for instance! If you look at the various sections I think they're all very relevant and most of them don't actually read excessively when you look at it in stages. It's just the whole thing combined and the large number of sources/books which push up the total kb. I think it's going to have to be one of the longest to do it justice and readers will expect a very long article on such a massive figure with a big singing career, big film career and all his political/mafia/style assets. Some advice from you or stalkers at what would be the maximum length you'd find acceptable for him, I do generally agree on 10,000 being the limit, but Sinatra is an exceptional biography and this is going to have to be considerably longer than normal I think. Also on where you think I should shorten it. I did recently significantly expand the Sinatra the musician section, which I think is largely relevant but that would be the first place I might start. Where else? I don't want to abruptly cut his film career like in the Reagan as it needs to be fairly substantial. He was massively productive in the 50s, so you'd expect a fairly sizable section on 50s in singing. This is the toughest bio I've ever taken on. I haven't copyedited it fully yet, I'm just completing the Granata book after which I'll start condensing and copyediting. Anyway, give it a quick read and see what you think we must do.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) You might want to consider a separate "early life" article, which will trim a lot of prose; most readers of this are likely to be interested in his singing career and not to care too much about his background, while it would still keep the material in easy reach for anyone who does want it. See Samuel Johnson for a good example of how this approach works in practice. ‑ iridescent 18:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- You didn't look at it, I split that into Early life of Frank Sinatra three weeks ago!! I said exactly the same thing to RO which is why we had a falling out. I've already cut lots of sections including Film career of Frank Sinatra! I'm reading it through again now and have reached the late 50s and it's difficult to see where I can really cut it much without it affecting the real comprehension of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- So you did - I saw that long "Early life" section and didn't notice the link at the top. I wouldn't call this unduly long for someone with a career as written-about as Sinatra, since overly trimming will mean it's no longer "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". In terms of readable prose, this is only slightly longer than William Etty, who's probably had less than 1⁄10 as much published about him,
and I don't think it would even make the top 100 for FAs by length. ‑ iridescent 20:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC) - Correction, it would be 22nd if User:The ed17/Featured articles by prose size is still accurate, but I don't think it's unreasonably long given how much needs to be included. It's shorter than Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson, FAs on people with comparable careers. ‑ iridescent 20:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Is it? Wow just looked at the length of the Michael Jackson article which is an FA. That at least is pleasing to know. I know Brian feels strongly on length that's all, and I didn't want everybody complaining about the length going into peer review. It's just Sinatra has had an enormous amount written about him and I'm really finding it hard to make it a lot shorter without it covering all the needed material as you said. I think he is comparable to Presley in terms of status, larger than life and most popular singer of the 20th century candidate sort of thing. If you read it you'll see what I mean, no section is really excessive or bloated with unnecessary info and up to 1960 where I am now it reads well I think and can't see where we can delete anything. It's just the combination of all the sections, the larger number of books and footnotes puts it at a length which would be unacceptable for most.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- It is true that I've expressed concern about article lengths in the past. I do think that we owe it to our readers to be as concise as we reasonably can, within the constraint of being comprehensive, although I accept that for mega-careers such a Sinatra's the article wordcount will inevitably be high. Unfortunately, I am going to be away all next week, and I have a pile of work to finish before then, including two long reviews already begun, some promised source reviewing at FAC, more TFA scheduling – not to mention my own work (which at this point just won't get done). So I'm afraid there's no chance of my getting to the Sinatra article for a couple of weeks, but I will comment when I can. If the general consensus among reviewers is that the length is justified, I won't quarrel with that. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- No worries. I've emailed some people and I think I'm cutting it too fine anyway for FA as I think it would need a massive amount of peer reviewing and general reviewing and questioning to really get it there. I don't really want to have to deal with the pressure of that at the moment. I'll move on once I finish the Granata book now. I may open a peer review in a few months and think about taking it to FA then, the important thing is that the article has been improved for his anniversary.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- It is true that I've expressed concern about article lengths in the past. I do think that we owe it to our readers to be as concise as we reasonably can, within the constraint of being comprehensive, although I accept that for mega-careers such a Sinatra's the article wordcount will inevitably be high. Unfortunately, I am going to be away all next week, and I have a pile of work to finish before then, including two long reviews already begun, some promised source reviewing at FAC, more TFA scheduling – not to mention my own work (which at this point just won't get done). So I'm afraid there's no chance of my getting to the Sinatra article for a couple of weeks, but I will comment when I can. If the general consensus among reviewers is that the length is justified, I won't quarrel with that. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Is it? Wow just looked at the length of the Michael Jackson article which is an FA. That at least is pleasing to know. I know Brian feels strongly on length that's all, and I didn't want everybody complaining about the length going into peer review. It's just Sinatra has had an enormous amount written about him and I'm really finding it hard to make it a lot shorter without it covering all the needed material as you said. I think he is comparable to Presley in terms of status, larger than life and most popular singer of the 20th century candidate sort of thing. If you read it you'll see what I mean, no section is really excessive or bloated with unnecessary info and up to 1960 where I am now it reads well I think and can't see where we can delete anything. It's just the combination of all the sections, the larger number of books and footnotes puts it at a length which would be unacceptable for most.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- So you did - I saw that long "Early life" section and didn't notice the link at the top. I wouldn't call this unduly long for someone with a career as written-about as Sinatra, since overly trimming will mean it's no longer "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". In terms of readable prose, this is only slightly longer than William Etty, who's probably had less than 1⁄10 as much published about him,
- You didn't look at it, I split that into Early life of Frank Sinatra three weeks ago!! I said exactly the same thing to RO which is why we had a falling out. I've already cut lots of sections including Film career of Frank Sinatra! I'm reading it through again now and have reached the late 50s and it's difficult to see where I can really cut it much without it affecting the real comprehension of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
| | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Brianboulton. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 90 | ← | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | Archive 94 |