Ceoil

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

Animals underfoot

Hi, saw this and immediately thought of you and that tomb

John de Pitchford

ϢereSpielChequers 08:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh wow, in wood and he died in 1285, thats very early! Very tempted to divert to researching the Pitchford Estate! Ceoil (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Thought you might like that, I've categorised a huge number of photos from English churches on Commons, and this struck me as an unusual survival of prereformation woodcarving ϢereSpielChequers 11:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Its way earlier than what I've been reading about, and interesting in that its so formative for later styles (the niches are already in place). That the wood has survived for 700 odd years is really something. Ceoil (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Tomb at St Edith, Eaton

I've just looked it up in Pevsner's book on Shropshire, two short mentions, "well preserved" "7' long" and one of two late 13th century oaken effigies in the county. Definitely something to come back to after your celtic thing. Not sure whether we should be looking at an article on that monument or the general topic of Oaken effigies from medieval England. the other 13th century one in Shropshire is at Berrington, but we don't currently have any internal shots of Media related to All Saints Church, Berrington at Wikimedia Commons the geograph has some of the really interesting font but not the effigy. There's also a 14th century effigy at St Edith's which I suspect is File:St Edith, Eaton - Effigy - geograph.org.uk - 2246215.jpg (no dog or lion underfoot and the bier looks Victorian to me). ϢereSpielChequers 11:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

well now you have me hooked. The simplicity of the St Edith tomb and that little is known...line and sinker. Ceoil (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

This takes me back... I remember being terrified by the tomb of The Wolf of Badenoch when taken to Dunkeld Cathedral as a small child. Not because he was a scary person (he was) but because they turned him into stone along with his pet dog which they put by his feet. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Nice Jim, into my top 20 the charmingly named tomb of The Wolf of Badenoc goes. I would have been terrified also, in fact...[gulp!!] Ceoil (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in, but there is certainly something that can be written here. I think a key piece of research here is a 1909 paper by Alfred Cooper Fryer in Archaeologia, on "Wooden Monumental Effigies in England and Wales". [9] And a revised version of that paper from 1924. More recently, there is a nice doctoral dissertation (Proefschrift) on "Early Secular Effigies in England" from the Thirteenth Century here: [10] That includes a list of 213 examples, with images, several of which are both early with either effigy or tomb/box or both in wood. We have images of most (see below), many look to be in surprisingly good condition given their age. Mostly lions at their feet, I think, not dogs. Only three have the original wooden box - Pitchford, Westminster, and Salisbury. I've not included Pitchford again below, and we don't seem to have images for two in St Mary's, Woodford, Northamptonshire.[11]

• 
  William de Valence, 1st Earl of Pembroke, Westminster Cathedral (with copper plates and enamel)
• 
  William Longespée, 3rd Earl of Salisbury, Salisbury Cathedral (stone effigy, wooden box)
• 
  Robert Curthose, Gloucester Cathedral (reconstructed base)
• 
  Southwark Cathedral
• 
  Old Sodbury, Gloucestershire
• 
  Little Horkesley, Essex (1,2,3)
• 
  Danbury, Essex (1)
• 
  Danbury, Essex (2)

The tomb of William de Valence clearly shows the early use of blank arcades as decoration, that could be filled in by "weepers" in later examples. See the discussion on p.29. We don't have a good image of the extraordinary canopied tomb of Aymer de Valence at Westminster, which is said to be the earliest example of "weepers" in England.[12] Theramin (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Aymer de Valence

I hope to take my camera to the Abbey this year and I'll put Aymer on my list, but I think it might be too close to the High Altar. There has to be a reason why we don't have any photos of that specific monument considering how much we have from the Abbey. The lion v dog issue does remind me of the debate about the unsympathetic restoration of that part of Phillipe de Pot's monument. ϢereSpielChequers 08:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Dog or lion?

Looking at the Wolf of Badenoch's "dog" it does appear to have a mane... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Have made a start on expanding Pitchford based on sources provided by Theramin, but there is a lot more would like to dig into. Excellent research as always. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome. Impressed with your find of the 1924 updated version of the Fryer article at archive.com. Happy editing. Theramin (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks but as usual am following your lead. I'm trying to think of an umbrella article to bring these together, but coming up with naught. Tomb Sculptures from the Court of Burgundy is obvious and catchy for the other side, but for English examples, dunno. Have always been an anglophile and am besotted by the images you provided, but don't want to get drawn into adding burial foot-notes to the bios of minor knights that nobody will ever read. Ceoil (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Er, something like Wooden tomb effigies in medieval England? Theramin (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Ceoil, you and I have both worked on Tomb effigy, which could do with plenty of expansion. It averages 56 views pd, which isn't too bad. Myself, I'd sooner keep stone, alabaster & wood in the same article, as the format & style seem essentially the same. But sections on the various materials, certainly - there's stuff at Nottingham alabaster. In the later Middle Ages at least the British & French styles seem pretty similar, so a Euro-wide article is probably best until it is a lot bigger. Tomb monument and Wall tomb both go to Funerary art at present. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks :) Needs an iconography section! Theramin would deeply appreciate if you could suggest starting points on the Early modern section (which is outside my area). Ceoil (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Tomb effigies of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, by Pietro Torrigiano, Westminster Abbey

Sorry, late coming back to this. (Apologies, too much other stuff going on: I hadn't expected to be worrying about parents quite so soon after the demands of children decreased, but this is life. My very strong recommendation is to settle as near to at least some family as you can bear. And so the muse has largely escaped me for some considerable time.)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "early modern" (late medieval? early renaissance? eg Donatello? even into the 16th or 17th centuries?) and I am by no means an expert either, but if it is tomb effigies you are after, we have things like the Tomb of Antipope John XXIII and the Scaliger Tombs. How about the tomb of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York (right)? Theramin (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Some pickings at List of extant papal tombs. Johnbod (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Adam and Eve (Dürer)

Thank you. I am currently working on it, but please come again in a few days and check my wordings, I am not always sure if it's ok since English is not my mother tongue. Would be much appreciated. By the way, I am considering to split the lemma in two, if my expansion grows too much: Adam and Eve (Dürer engraving) and (... painting) respectively. MenkinAlRire 17:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I think your on the way for a split. Its great to see the work. Would be happy at a later date to revisit the prose. Ceoil (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Table captions

Hello. Regarding your removal of table captions on Doolittle (album) here, just letting you know that they are required for all tables on Wikipedia per MOS:TABLECAPTION (part of WP:ACCESS), explained at MOS:DTT and decided upon by consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 15#RfC on table captions so they should not be removed. Ss112 01:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Trokia

Completed copy edits and pinged Gog a while ago. Hopefully he comes back to it. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

He already has, still opposing, but with a very useful list of suggest improvements. Ceoil (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Saw that and made some adjustments plus some questions. In terms of plot, the anthology nature and how my sources report it, leaving it as it is is for the best with some fixes on prose. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Potential Troika Additions

Hello my friend. I have been sort of thinking about how to flesh out and snip away at that Troika article. One of my ideas to add to the production section, to make everything in the article click together, is to include a scholarly definition for art film and how the movement had gained popularity around that time. I read over the article on art films, and it adds a bit more logic to some of what Hobbs did for Troika in regards to narrative structure. Paleface Jack (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. I'm surprised - given its an art-film, that most of the sources you have are from the popular film press; would have though there would be more academic or film theory type essays you could have drawn from. Did a search on jstor and Google Scholar earlier, and....nothing. Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I searched everywhere and no scholorly mention of the film. I am unsurprised cause it it not well known at all. Paleface Jack (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Then I would explain this; why Hobbs is not seen in the pantheon of art film makers, despite this focus on painterly imagery. Snobbery towards the horror genre? Surely some general bio sources have addressed this....ie his legacy. Ceoil (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Flip; the images are so obviously borrowed from painterly sources (I mentioned Goya earlier), would have though somebody had picked up on that. I'm continuing the prose/clarity review on talk. Sorry if the points are bluntly stated. PS when you posted happened to be listening to [13] which is kind of apt, given its throwback retro/future classic horror vibe, which I now know a lot more about thanks to you :) Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

ye. I prefer to be taught the prose so I can work on it and other projects with a better understanding. The Texas Chain Saw film is one of those that I really need to have flawless prose cause of my intentions for it. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I have also been trying to figure out how to incorporate the "titles" of Troika's segments. Though they are not titled in the film, Hobbs referred to them under titles in the Thrower interview and it would make the production section that mentions these titles more logical. I want to avoid the pratfall of "Hobbs called the segment..." or "Hobbs referred to it as..." which is lazy writing and poor prose as far as I am concerned. I thought about just leaving a note but that is also lazy. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Have been thinking about this also, and think you are into "least worst" territory. Think readers would be best served by having definitive segment titles, the source of which is explained in the foot-notes. Anything other in the article body is distracting and frankly a bit meta. I strongly recommend you go down that route. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Would it be better when I mention the segments in the plot to footnote the titles? Paleface Jack (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Never mind. I am also gonna redo the first couple sentences of the development section as it seems a bit too jumbled for my liking and it's a perfect way to link it to what I have on the art film genre tying to the film. Paleface Jack (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Doolittle

It would be nice to re-run that on the main page for TFA at some point, and the obvious date would be the 40th anniversary of release in 5 years time (if anyone remembers). The first time it was ran was 2011, so it's been quite some time. I'd recommend sending it to peer review and featured article review on top of the guild. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Harizotoh9, thanks for note; I agree and am anxiously awaiting somebody from the guild to step up...requested a copy edit from them about a month ago; here is hoping. Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

ps, I think many will remember, all of the 25th anniversary's got huge press and prominent retrospectives. Ceoil (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello

Hi! Nice to see my watchlist lit up this morning. I got more than a little sick of Hemingway (have a stack of books to re-read, but procrastinging ... ) so I picked around the edges of the Dry Tree a bit. Still interested in getting it FA ready - five year plans & all. P.s looking at the thread above I looked through Doolittle & didn't find any errors, but I'm not great at finding errors. Is it still at FAR? Hope all is well. Victoria (tk) 15:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I would be honoured; the article has been calling at me for ages, the painting is so haunting and different. The five year plan should be put into full effect, frankly it would be really great to collab on another article, reminding that my openion of your ability has always been sky high. I need a few days to close out on the GA for the Corleck Head, and then would be delighted to switch over. Ceoil (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

ps, Dolittle passed FAR today, but my other main priority is to get Troika (1969 film) ready for FAC, but think it just needs a few hours of focus get the structure bang up to snuff. Ceoil (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Congrats on Doolittle! Whew, for getting that done. There's work & reading to be done for Hemingway & the clock is ticking so I won't be able to pivot to the Dry Tree immediately (and I'm slow). That said, I'd like to see if I'm even capable of getting an article through FAC these days. I've noticed that the reviewers are checking lots of new stuff - image placement (!!), alt text, templates (which I can't really do), & wanting to see sources for verification, among other things. So I thought maybe we should give it try & see what happens :) Victoria (tk) 23:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with new criteria tbh (although alt text can be tricky and vearing into or OR visual art pages), and it was always the challenge of FAC that attracted me the most. Haven't nomed in a year, planning to get back with the pagan head but want it to be just so. Apart from that, a collab on the Christus would be like old times; exciting and rewarding; your ability has always brought out the best in me. Ceoil (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Cool. You're on. Let's do it. The head is creepy - gives me the heeby-jeebies. I tried to give a run through but couldn't. There's power in that object, even in pictures, even after all these many years. It's a worthy project & pairs well with the lady in the tree. Victoria (tk) 23:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see it like that...to me its ancestral and although the craftsmanship is primitive see it as long ago people reaching out to the future. Ceoil (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

People reaching to the future is probably what I mean by power. Or something. Ignore my hyperbole. Victoria (tk) 14:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks re the head, <trilled> re the tree. Ceoil (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

So ... can you find the Nosow (2012) source? The one I'm finding is about medieval music so I'm confused. Though I know what it's sourcing - the niches & van der Weyden - is true. I think Sterling discusses the niches - will trawl through my files. Later! Victoria (tk) 23:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll try re Nosow but no promises. Take it that am starting from zero with the page. Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Nah, don't bother. The one that's cited in the article is this (if you can see it). Your approach is right, let's start with zero. It's not like there are a ton of sources. I searched again a couple of days ago & this popped. It's a strange context for the dry tree iconography but it discusses it & the pics are good. Victoria (tk) 00:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Great. Nice find! PS We're rewatching s1 of House of the Dragon in anticipation of the season 2 premiere tomorrow night. It's so much better than GoT, which I found tedious from s2 onwards. I am totally on team Matt Smith; he's such a handsome rogue! Ceoil (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I got dragoned out after GoT. Tried reading the book that the new series is based on & just gave up. So didn't even get through much of season one of House. That's me. Critical to a fault. Victoria (tk) 14:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

House of the Dragons is great, as somebody who also was gritting their teeth from about Ned's decapitation onwards. GoT mostly seemed like a bunch of people walking around in a boring quest-like sort of way, but the spin-off is high politics mixed with the bloodthirsty, high-stakes realism of the first season of Rome. And the casting is brilliant. I highly recommend. Ceoil (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I can start on Dry Tree any time, but equally am happy to wait if you're busy. If you're busy, I might take a swing through the Hemingway subarticles before I return the huge stack of books to the library. In other words, no hurry. This is just to let you know that I've not forgotten. Victoria (tk) 23:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I've not forgotten either and have been re-reading the sources. I need to get this bloody head sorted, which will take about another two weeks, and then will refocus. It's such a strange painting, would be delighted to be reabsorbed. Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

ps, I haven't found any new literature since the last expansion, so thinking this might be a necessarily short article. I think the notes you have in the sandbox should about cover it. After that, it's polish. Ceoil (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I haven't found new literature either. I just have to re-read and refamiliarize myself with the sandbox. It's, like, very old. Anyway, no rush. I'm still picking up the pieces from Hemingway. Good luck with the bloody head (that made me laugh). Be well & greetings to Liz. Victoria (tk) 23:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Death (Ligier Richier).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Death (Ligier Richier).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Troika Images

I found a couple of images that could be used for the article in the development section. They depict Hobbs' Trojan Horse piece, One from a still of the film and another from a publication in the magazine Artforum. I was thinking of using both but one can also work too. The other I had is from the press book depicting Nate Thurmond in a crowd of worshipers, it seems much like Goya though i am not sure what specific piece. Paleface Jack (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Great and thanks. I'm starting to think I might be becoming too demanding in my preferences, so may quieten down for a bit! Thanks again. Ceoil (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh wow, the artform article mention's Witches’ Sabbath! Ceoil (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It's ok. We both have different styles, and that's good cause we all work to the same goal. Because it is a film article and not like some of you other works, it becomes a bit tricky cause film articles are very exact and picky I. my experience. The article is also not that bit, so adding too many images to it, that can distract readers from the text, and I have seen way too many articles on that as a reader. If the article were 2x longer than it is, then that would be different. It more comes down to what specific images should be used to express the film if they are significant enough. I did find a lot more info on influences for Hobbs' paintings/sculptures using Artforum. And last night, after texting you, I found a treasure trove of information on Begotten from video interviews on YouTube from reliable sources. Paleface Jack (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Its never happened to me but have seen some FAC nominators try to please every opposer and end up with an (promoted) article they no longer like, or slightly less worse....withdraw the nom in frustration. IMO some opposes should be left to stand, and nominators should be able to stand up for themselves, without being a douch about it, obviously. Anyways, onwards :) Ceoil (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Its ok mate, I get where you are coming from. I am notorious for being stubborn which has and has not worked in my favor. I have been sort of preoccupied working on my edits for The Texas Chain Saw Massacre on my revision page, I am running out of ideas and possible sources/improvements for Troika so I have not been doing much with it. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that why I sid originally that the article should be shorter given the availability of sources. Tight is better than padded....see my last edit summary re Blockbusters. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

If it's ok with you, I'll be finished with the ongoing copyedit and source review in a few weeks (c. 3 weeks prob), by which time I expect to support. Ceoil (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds Good. I will keep looking for more info. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Ceoil. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks and replied. I hope a non-republican Paddy perspective helps. Ceoil (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

How's is going?

Hey there, haven't spoken in a while. You been keeping okay? You should known that a friend of mine visited Dublin in the spring and I convinced him to go see the Corleck Head and send a selfie back. I know of its existence, of course, solely due to your work on its article! Aza24 (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Aza24, thank you for saying, and have to admit I do follow your contribs as they tend to lead me to new musical areas. One thing, though, given Human history is necessarily written in summary style, should the article not crib more from the lead of the sub-articles, many of which are far better written and sourced than the current parent. Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Corleck Head

Hello! How are you doing? I was very flattered by your reeling me in! I'm honestly not sure I can do it properly and write a nice review and everything like the Big Kids do ... is it a Royal Pain for you if I just do little tweaks, on the understanding that I won't mind if I am reverted? I might be slightly more productive looking at it that way, but I don't have to if you would dislike it. Please advise.

In other news, I did try raising the question of English dialects on its Talk page, but it seems to have gone nowhere. My concern was that for me, in BrE, "artifact" is wrong, but I saw some indications that if we are in Irish English then it might be correct. A colleague has changed them anyway though, so I should probably stfu! Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm struggling with this also. To me its "artifact", but signed up for a 30-day trial spell checker which allowed me to stipulate that the article was in Paddy English, but it threw up results that others think are worng and I dont understand. Remember...I was educated in IRL in the 70s when British grammar was at its lowest credibility ebb....so it was avoided and never explained...to understand propper grammar was to accept partition (a viewpoint I completely disagree with) or something like that.

That said, thanks again for the help and edits on the head, your a very solid, unusually dry and witty person to interact with. And I like you being around. Ceoil (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh cheers, that's very kind of you. I will just go on weebling around then, and not be upset if reverted. I am glad you think I am dry ... most people think I am a bit wet, but hey. With all good wishes DBaK (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

PS The article is splendid, and intriguing! I had no idea. It has been a great education to look at it. DBaK (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

DBaK how you might best help is scanning over and if any sentences are unclear or make no sense - loudly complain on talk. Treathen AN/I if necessary. This would be very benifical to my lazy arse. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Doolittle (album)

Hi Ceoil, I've now finished my c/e. I noticed a few points:

In "Background" (first para) and "Recording and production" (second para), I found direct quotations without a citation, which is required per WP:MOSQUOTE. I've marked these with [citation needed] tags.

In "Artwork and title" (first para), I noticed a sentence clause that isn't supported by the given source, which doesn't mention Doolittle, though it does mention the earlier albums. I've marked this sentence with [failed verification].

From what I can tell, and I checked the official website, the band's name is "Pixies", not "The Pixies" or "the Pixies", so I've removed most instances of "The" and "the". If my change is incorrect or unwelcome, please feel free to replace these.

Other areas for improvement:

The citation style is mixed; I noted uses of {{sfn}}, {{cite web}} and non-templated full citations. To comply with FA criterion 2c, these should probably be converted to a single style, though I don't know which style regular editors here would prefer. i haven't attempted to change any citations.

Anyway, that's all I can think of right now. Good luck with the article and cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC).

Thanks a bunch Baffle gab1978; a skilled copy edit and have your sourcing stuff addressed. Much appreciated from here, happy days. Ceoil (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Gothic boxwood miniature

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 1 September 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, and to Dank for the blurb. Ceoil (talk)

My pleasure. Wonderful article. - Dank (push to talk) 19:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Born to Run FAC

In case you didn't see I nominated Born to Run over at FAC in case you wanted to leave some comments. If not it's all good. Thanks! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi

Yo Ceoil, I'll reply properly to you message on my page soon! In the meantime here are two tunes by a certain somebody to keep your brain churning: [[14]] ("Fly with me!") and [[15]]. Great! Moisejp (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Tomb of Philippe Pot scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 30 October 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 30, 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 2024. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. – SchroCat (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks SchroCat. Ceoil (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Corleck Head

The article Corleck Head you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Corleck Head for comments about the article, and Talk:Corleck Head/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks you a bunch for the extended review. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Troika FA

It has been a while since there was activity on Troika's FA nomination. Gog seems busy offsite and has not replied to my message on his talk page. Hopefully the inactivity does not result in a failed nomination. Paleface Jack (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack, I wouldn't worry and think your fine; noms are usually only archived after inactivity if there are no or few supports, espically if the article is turning into an extended peer review; thats not good. You dont seem to have that prob here, and wouldn't hassle Gog too much on his talk; he'll get to it. Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

sounds good Paleface Jack (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

There are archian rules/practices I know, but needed unless articles with out a snowballs hope suck up reviewers time. Hint hint, you could do some reviews. Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing has never been my strong suite or interest sadly. Getting into the nit-picking of prose (still working on my own), would be a disservice to articles I review. In terms of Troika we have 4 support reviews already and I am not completely sure if that means a pass or not. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Just an update, had a very strange user do an unsigned review of Troika. Though they had some honest critiques, I have some reasons to question some of its validity as some of the critiques like some sources not mentioning certin information (i checked some of them and they did have the info). It is very weird.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Jo-Jo is very experienced, and as you (yet) are a nominator without a sucessful FAC, you'll get more scrutiny regarding sources, especially re article text vs source integrity. Most reviews tend to be about prose; the source reviews are more important. Ceoil (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure how to email people my stuff, my yearning for privacy my detriment here. Also, had to restructure the final section to fit a reviewer's critique. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

You have a few choices. You could send the screenshots to me and I'll send them to Jo-Jo (it wouldn't be hard from a google search to find me, so am unlikely to dox you, especially as have admitted on your talk that am a weekend goth...something would not like work to know:), you could change the source, or if the book is available on kindle on Amazon for a few quid (old books tend to be c. €2.00 and I like books), point me in the direction and I'll send the screenshots. However, I wouldn't panic or get too excited; FAC is very different to most other parts of wiki and can be daunting early on. But if you stick with it you get to anticipate and prepare for the inevitable requests WHILE writing the initial drafts for the article. Ceoil (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I have the screenshots I will email you them. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Sound, have emailed Jo Jo in return. The pages are fascinating, and am blown away by screenshots, though known we cant include them, Ceoil (talk) 00Jo Jo :45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I dont' think Troika shall pass as it is inactive.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

No, its more that its unlikely not to pass unless Jo-Jo finds a fundamental issue with the sources. This is why both myself and Gog were saying that Jo-Jo is so highly respected as one of the few editors at FAC who goes so deep to look at source to text integrity, and weed out copyvio. Hold tough; having read the book pages you sent, am confident you are fine. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds Good. Paleface Jack (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Grand. You seem to be highly strung about such matters; again suggest you get involved in reviews and get to know the culture before you go further, especially with a major nom such as Texas Chain Saw Massacre; you don't have the cloult/cred/knowledge yet, and frankly any reviewer will be thinking is this guy out for himself vs. invested in the process. Ceoil (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair. Such matters are difficult as reviewing FA and GA take more out me than working on articles and they never really interested or been a strong skill. I get what you are meaning though. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I might take a break when this FA for Troika is over so I can get one of my articles peer reviewed. Paleface Jack (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thats a good idea, you have a lost of articles now to choose from now for a PR. Ceoil (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for adding your voice of reason at Talk:Memorial Hall. FYI, though, I've restored "vast and cavernous" to Widener Library. It's presented in quotes (as imagery like that needs to be) and though that exact phrase isn't referred to again anywhere in the article, it's a myth that everything in the lead absolutely must be repeated later, and there's nothing wrong with a catchy phrase that draws the reader in. EEng 05:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Re "vast and cavernous", it's a matter of placement; have moved the claim to the 2nd para. Ceoil (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a very depressing pile-on for the likes of me, who is increasingly focusing on architecture. Look at this attempt to remove supposed "pov" language such as "broad west front" and "dominant features"[16] and weap. Although the changes didn't stick they were intended as the basis for a WP:FAR. One of my greatest fears is that when I inevitably drop dead, my FA work will be reversed on stupid basis by one or two determined people. Ceoil (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

When we're gone, new defenders will rise to take our places. EEng 14:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Or old behaviors could move in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. When I read opinions like "Imposing" is a subjective opinion, not an objective fact" I wonder if "anybody can edid" a is really a tentative position; but overall it evens out. Sandy, directly relating to this fear, hopefully you remember my early FAR focus[17]. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

TFA

story · music · places

Thank you today for Gothic boxwood miniature, introduced: "Impossibly small wood-cut miniatures from the 15th and 16th centuries, which have unfortunately been under studied until very recently, partly because they are too small to fully appreciate even with the naked eye. I have watched people come across them in museums, and the usual reaction is jaw drop; it takes a few minutes to realise what you are looking at." Exquisite and eye-opening! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Today's story has 3 composers, I couldn't decide for the one on the Main page or the one who didn't make it on his bicentenary, so took both, and the pic has a third. Listen if you have a bit of time. The music, played by the Kyiv Symphony Orchestra in Germany in April 2022, impressed me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Recommended reading today: Frye Fire, by sadly missed Vami_IV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I just came here to say the same thing as Gerda. Delightful article, so happy to see it on the main page. I am one of those who always try to find these whenever I visit a museum, and let my jaw drop. Thanks for your hard work in bringing it to FA. Best, Yakikaki (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to add a third voice of thanks. What a fantastic article! I didn't know anything about the minatures and now feel that I know something, so I'd call that a success. Given the article is substantially your work I hope you've been able to take some pride in it. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, Yakikaki and A.D.Hope; it was great to have them on main page as they are so overlooked. Best Ceoil (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Love the thought of wanting the overlooked on the Main page! - places have a new museum for abstract art, - can't believe it has no article in English yet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry wot Gerda...and tks as always my friend. Ceoil (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I came to bring you more Bach: a cantata on the Main page on its 300th birthday (per calendar), my story! - In case I was unclear: You brought the miniature - often overlooked - to the Main page, and I like that. I'm sometimes less successful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Aideen's Grave

I created a page on Aideen's Grave but the subject matter is a bit out of my comfort zone so I thought I would tag you in for any input or review.Financefactz (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy 5th FAC

I have brought this article to FAC again and after your comments on the first times, would you care to contribute again? K. Peake 14:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)