User talk:Graham Beards/Archives/2011

History of viruses

Hi Graham. I've been really busy this week so haven't had the time until last night to finish reading your article. I may have some more time tonight and the weekend to discuss changes, if that's what you want to do. I can see you are having problems with the split into "history of viruses" and "history of virology". The way I'm thinking about it is that the former wouldn't include any physicians or scientists or discoveries, unless perhaps those scientists/discoveries were about our understanding of the history of viruses. I think the two articles from a split would each be more focussed, have room to develop, and fit better with the other virus articles. Would it be worth experimenting in a sandbox? I think if the article is radically altered, then it would only be fair to ping FAC contributors to ask them to reconsider their !vote in case it changes. Do you have the free time to work on it? I know I'd hate to perform such surgery under the glare of FAC, but you're several orders of magnitude quicker at writing than me.

I don't know where you get the idea that "viruses can be considerd dull" from. Think about HIV, SARS, swine flue, foot and mouth. How much news coverage did they get? Viruses fascinate and terrify us. Colin°^Talk 09:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Colin, I have asked Sandy et al. to archive the FAC. I think the proposed changes probably cannot be completed in a reasonable time. I'll paste the article into my user space (twice) and see what progess I can make in achieving a satisfactory virus-virology split. Actually, I do think some people find viruses "dull" — most of them are fascinated and terrified by what viruses do, and not what they are and how the replicate. I could put people into a coma when I talk about the nuances of their replication cycles :-) Best wishes. Graham Colm (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've started taking a look at this, as you asked me. In my effort to give the lead a bit more pazazz I made this change, but I'm unconvinced that either version is strictly accurate. If it's uncertain that viruses predated cells then how can we be certain that they originated at the same time as life on Earth? Or am I misunderstanding something? Malleus Fatuorum 19:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, thanks for helping :-) I think you might be missing a subtle point, which is my fault. The origins of viruses were probably not viruses as they are now defined, but less sophisticated self-replicating molecules. And, "life", which is more of a philosophical concept and not really a scientific one, pre-dates the emergence of cells. The point I was/am trying to make, and this is a theory that is not fully accepted, is that cellular life and some viruses probably emerged from the primordial soup together. Other viruses probably had different origins. There was not a discreet point in evolution when organic molecules became "alive" and this is one of the reasons why it is difficult to pinpoint the origins of viruses. We need to use a lot of caveats when trying to explain current thinking, hence all the "probablies", because we are at the frontier of scientific understanding. I prefer your version. It has been clear to me for a while now that the Lead needs more work. Graham Colm (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If your version is better than mine then it ought to go back, but it still seems to me to be inconsistent with the later claim in the first paragraph of the Origins section that viruses existed before modern cells, or perhaps it's the word "modern" that's the key there. Modern in the sense of specialised cells as in ourselves, as opposed to the cells in the early fractal forms of life? Anyway, here's another for you. Also in the Origins section you refer to three competing hyotheses, but the section ends by calling them theories. I don't think they can be both can they? Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

During the edit conflict, I corrected myself. I think your version is better. (I have a virus of my own at moment and my head is fuzzy.) WRT to theories vs. hypotheses, they are called both in the literature, but my favourite book and most recent one,(Mahy a.), calls them "hypotheses" so I think we should call them this. Graham Colm (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice that, no problem then. I take a rather strict view on the difference between theories and hypotheses (theories generate testable hypotheses) but maybe I've been too influenced by Popper. From my look through so far I'd say that the lead was definitely letting down what is a very impressive piece of work. I've reworked it a bit, but I have a nagging feeling that it's just a tad on the short side for an article of this size. That's small beer though. I'll press on wih looking at the rest of the article. Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

When I started re-reading it the other day, I noticed quite a few problems with the lead and didn't think it was a fair summary of the article (not that I'd read the whole article). But I decided against working on it till the other bits were right. I still think it best to leave the lead till we're happy with the rest. Sorry to hear you have a cold -- I know how you feel. Colin°^Talk 21:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nothing wrong with being influenced by Popper :-) Yes, the Lead is crap, I agree - it doesn't adequately summarise the article at all. But at the moment I am drowning in my own snot and need to take a break. This is not man-flu. Please, carry one with the your questions and copy-edit. (I trust your judgement completely.) I'll catch up with you later, if I live. Best wishes, to you, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll just list my questions here and you can deal with when you're back in the land of the living. Malleus Fatuorum 16:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• "There are more than 500 species arboviruses, but in the 1930s apart from yellow fever, only three were known, dengue and Pappataci fever." This seems to be confusing the viruses with the diseases they cause. Should that say something like "... only three were known to cause disease"?

Yes, the source says, "In 1930 only three arthropod-borne virus (arbovirus) human diseases were known - yellow fever, dengue fever, and papatici fever. Today, over a hundred arboviruses cause human disease."

• "In the 1930s the disease re-emerged in Brazil. Fred Soper, an American epidemiologist (1893–1977), discovered the importance of the sylvatic cycle of infection in non-human hosts, and that humans were a "dead end" that broke this cycle.[146] The yellow fever vaccine is one of the most successful ever developed," It's not at all obvious to me what Soper's discovery has to do with the development of the yellow fever vaccine.

It has nothing to do with it. It's just my sloppy writing. This bit needs a little re-arranging.

• "Of the many diseases of humans that were discovered to be caused by viruses in the 20th century only one, smallpox, has been eradicated. Two others – measles and polio virus – could be, but others such as HIV and influenza have proved to be more difficult to control." This seems slightly jarring to me, as it appears to start off talking about diseases, but then gradually drifts into the viruses that cause those diseases. I'd probably be happier, for instance, if "polio virus" was changed to "poliomyelitis", i.e., the name of the condition rather than the virus that causes it.

Yes, you are right again. Virologists, including me, have a nasty habit of randomly mixing the name of the disease and the name of the virus.

Thanks for this and your work on the article :-) Graham Colm (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, as I've already said, it's a great piece of work, glad to have been able to help in a small way. I think I've been through the whole article now (God knows how long it must have taken you to write it, it took me long enough to read it) and I have only one final question. It seems strange to me to describe the influenza pandemic of 1781–2 as "probably the most devastating in history" in the Early modern period section, but then not to mention it at all in the later Influenza section.

Anyway, I think my work here is done now, but if there's anything else I can do to help you know where to find me. Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, thank you so much; for a Manc to give so much help to a Brummie may be a first :-) and in true keeping with the spirit of the project. I didn't reiterate the 18th century pandemic later because of the 20th century heading. Perhaps I should harp back to it in the later 'flu section to put into perspective the completely overblown pandemic of 2009? I will give this some thought. Yes, I am glad I know where to find you. Best Wishes, by the way for 2011 and forever. Next I have to worry about Colin's razor sharp criticisms. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC) PS. My snot is drying up. G.

I, and I suspect many others, would have thought that the 1918 influenza outbreak was the worst, so it's a bit of a tease to just mention the real worst one ever in passing. Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Colin is feeling a bit blunted at the moment. I've still to read most of the article. Two big topics I think the article should address (perhaps it does) is the interaction between virus and man in two ways:

1. How has the virus influenced human history? For example, defeating the native Americans, killing soldiers at war, preventing the white nations from being quite so successful with their African colonies, killing staple crops (leading to famine), holding back tropical countries' development.
2. How human history affected the virus? For example, the development of agriculture (bringing grain-pests into contact with humans), the formation of towns and cities (bringing population density up to a point where viruses can become endemic), the migration of people due to conflict, famine, trade or leisure, the change in people's lifestyles (loss of "family values" resulting in greater promiscuity, drug abuse, foreign holidays), medical changes (use of unclean syringes, untreated blood products, congregation of sick people in one place in hospital, germ theory), population growth, development of vaccines and antivirals.

Are these topics clear or are they lost among the details of various diseases? Are there other big topics we want the reader to be aware of? Colin°^Talk 22:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope these details have not been lost. I think we have covered the impact on Native Americans "History repeated itself, and many Native American populations were devastated later by the inadvertent spread of smallpox, measles, and influenza." But, your other points regarding war—and you have been reminded of me of the blood borne hepatitis viruses—colonialism and famines, probably need to be covered. I think we have covered the importance of the development of agriculture and population density increases. I think we have covered the importance of vaccines in the smallpox and measles sections. Changes in lifestyles in the 20th century have certainly changed the epidemiology of viral infections and this probably needs a mention, but we must be careful not to come across as judgemental. Perhaps a new addition to the 20th century section is needed, which explains how the increase in human mobility (air travel, mass migration), and cultural changes, etc. have affected the epidemiology of viral diseases. I think the important influence of antiviral drugs could be covered in one or two sentences in the HIV section. Graham Colm (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Happy Holidays
		Hope you have a lovely holiday season. I have one request: At least once this season, completely ruin someone's attempt to piss you off. If someone cuts you off in traffic or shits on you at work, just smile and wave and tell them Happy Holidays. Maybe they'll be less of an asshole, even if it's just for the rest of the day. Andy Walsh (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

FAC and dengue

Hello GrahamColm. Could I ask for your opinion in the FAC of thyrotoxic periodic paralysis? This article has been on FAC for some time but I've had fairly limited responses. Your input would be much appreciated.

On a separate note, Doc James (Jmh649 (talk · contribs) has been working on dengue fever, and the article is now on GAC. I've been making some additions. Please let me know if you have any specific comments on the current state of the article. I am still working on a paragraph called "Mechanism", and I've left a number of recommendations, but your professional views on this IMHO important topic would be welcomed. JFW | T@lk 23:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with dengue! JFW | T@lk 10:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I have some other comments on the article, which I'll leave on the Talk Page. I plan to read the FAC later today, but this is not my subject as you know. Graham Colm (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks in advance. Given your extensive experience with featured content I still value your opinion immensely. JFW | T@lk 16:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I got called in to the lab, which has messed-up my day :( but I will find the time tonight or tomorrow. Graham Colm (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Online Ambassador interest

Hi! Thanks for signing the Online Ambassador interest list. I have a little bit of an answer to your question there. I do hope you'll apply! --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but your answer caused me to have concerns and I have replied on the project page. Graham Colm (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've tried now to be more clear about what I meant. Hope that helps.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

MMR fraud

Hey, Graham, we need help :) Wikipedia_talk:MED#MMR_vaccine_controversy, it's going on the main page In the News. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This is spooky, I was writing about measles in another article when I got your message. I would have replied sooner but I was in edit mode. I'll give what help I can. Graham Colm (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

AFD

Hi, I saw your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of HIV-positive people. What sources are exactly questionable there? Garion96 (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the ones I cannot check. Have you looked here recently? [1] Graham Colm (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course. I recently checked out the dead links. Some of the dead links could be removed but that's irrelevant to questionable sources. That this for instance is a dead link doesn't matter since the reference quite clearly states "Bob Hattoy, 56; witty and outspoken advocate for the environment, AIDS research", published 2007-03-6, written by Elaine Woo and published in the LA times. References don't have to available online, it just is nice when they are. Garion96 (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course they don't. But on closer inspection there are numerous other problems with the referencing. Perhaps the standards are lower for Featured Lists than they are for Featured Article, but where are the page numbers for the books that are cited in references, 137, 165, 167, 171, 174, 186, 201, 246, 256, 261, 266 and 299? Other references cited lack a publisher. The lack of these details makes the sources questionable. I think dead links should be marked as such or removed. If on removal of the link there is not enough detail remaining for readers to find the paper sources, then the citation no good. Graham Colm (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough check. With the exception of 299 I don't see anything wrong though. 299 is indeed a book and has no page number. All the other ones you mentioned are newspaper or magazine articles. That those miss a page number I can't really find important. Especially since all of these were available online. If a source states it was in the New York Times written by x published on 06-01-2011 or in the Januari 2011 number of the Advocate magazine shouldn't that be sufficient? I wouldn't even mind that much if this lists gets deleted, although I prefer it kept. But I did worked hard at finding those sources so that I do want in order. :) Garion96 (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)– Perhaps I am going stupid in my old age, but the list below look like books to me. Are they really all newspapers or magazine articles?

• Gamson, Joshua (2005). The fabulous Sylvester: the legend, the music, the seventies in San Francisco. New York: H. Holt. pp. ?. ISBN 0-8050-7250-0.
• David Kerekes (2003). Headpress 25 : Flicker Machine: The William Burroughs Edition (Headpress Journal). Headpress. pp. ?. ISBN 1-900486-26-1.
• Roger Edmonson (2000). Clone. Boston, Mass: Alyson Publications. pp. ?. ISBN 1-55583-529-5.
• Charles Isherwood (1996). Wonder Bread and Ecstasy: The Life and Death of Joey Stefano. Boston, Mass: Alyson Publications. pp. ?. ISBN 1-55583-383-7.
• Shilts, Randy (1988). And the band played on: politics, people, and the AIDS epidemic. New York: St. Martin's Press. pp. ?. ISBN 0-312-24135-6.
• Kit Chapman (1999). An Innkeeper's Diary. Weidenfeld Nicolson Illustrated. pp. ?. ISBN 0-297-82460-0.
• Didier Lestrade (2000). Act Up: Une histoire (Denoel impacts) (French Edition). Paris: Denoël. pp. ?. ISBN 2-207-24883-6.
• Michela Wrong (2001). In the Footsteps of Mr Kurtz. Harpercollins Pub Ltd. pp. ?. ISBN 1-84115-422-9.

If you recall, I argued against deletion of the List. My throw-away comment on the state of the references was not meant to be a reason for deletion at all. I don't want to make an issue out of this, but I suggest when the understandable worry of the AfD is over, that the references are cleaned-up to 2011 FL standard. Graham Colm (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nah, you're not going stupid. Those are indeed books. You probably had your numbers wrong since not a single one of these were the reference numbers you listed in your post above. :) But true, those could be improved. To call those questionable sources is one step too far for me though. They are good sources, just need to be more specific. Garion96 (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the numbering mix up is caused by reference 128, which is "named" as:

<ref name='independent'>{{cite news | first=Clare | last=Garner | title=Arts suffer most as Aids rages on | date=1995-11-26 | url = http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_19981108/ai_n14483602 | work =The Independent | pages =2 | accessdate = 2006-10-10}}</ref>

but reused later twice as:

<ref name=independent/>

I am surprised it worked at all. It is lost in Edit mode, hence my numbering above being one reference out of step. It also doesn't link to The Independent, but to the a Sunday Mirror article.[2] Graham Colm (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Strange. Whether in edit mode or not I don't see any different numbers. I did removed the link though. I guess findarticles has changed their site, since the link was to a totally unrelated article. Garion96 (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried segregating the refs in edit mode, (you need the Java for this). To be honest, I am finding so many problems with the referencing of the article, that I am considering nominating it for delisting as a Featured List. Graham Colm (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I would wait at least before this AFD is decided to do that or not. Why would I want to segregate the references? In normal view everything works fine and in edit mode everything works fine as well. I haven't been able to replicate the strange numbering you encountered. After this AFD is decided (and of course only if kept) I will clean up some referencing. So far the only problems I encountered are some dead links (or changed like in this) and page numbers in books. I can't really see that as "so many problems". Garion96 (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

When I am not working on my contributions, I spend most of my time reviewing articles at WP:FAC. I don't know what the standards are for FLs, so I'll seek advice on this from more experienced editors. But I don't plan to do anything until the AfD is closed. With regard to your question about segregating references; it is a very useful way to check them for missing information, formatting problems and use of reliable sources. In doing this, several problems came to light in "your" list. But, it is not just the lack of page numbering, or dead and wrong links – the citation style is inconsistent, and often untidy and unprofessional. I think the standards expected are higher now compared to when the list was promoted to FL. Graham Colm (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Did some quick removal of some links, but am not going to a thorough cleaning up since it's pointless until AFD is decided. Will come back to you after the AFD is closed and if consensus is keep. :) Garion96 (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This list was made featured in 2006 and for sure things must have changed since then. Stylistic issues I can fix, but also don't mind them personally that much. Although I can understand they must be perfect for this list to keep being a featured list. Questionable sources on the other hand I do mind, especially for BLP's. Those I haven't seen but I will do a thorough check up on those as well if consensus is keep. Garion96 (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, AFD was keep. How exactly can you segregate the references? Is there a java tool or something like that on the toolserver for those kind of things? Perhaps editors want to change inclusion criteria after this AFD discussion, but at least I can clean the references up. Garion96 (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

See here: User:PleaseStand/References segregator Graham Colm (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will give the list a cleanup in the next couple of days. Garion96 (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Your note

Hello GrahamColm. Thanks for your note and my apologies for removing good info. I was trying to check on an IP that made an edit here [3] which changed a legit external link to a dud one. I noticed it was an IP at Rutgers. As often happens with college edits some are good and others were not. I was afraid that the recent ones might also be duds. Please feel free to revert my edit on the hep C page and thank you for you thoroughness in taking care of that article. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 18:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

looks like Scray has already fixed my error. Thanks again for being more thorough than I was. MarnetteD | Talk 18:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, it's nice to meet you. I don't like reverting established and respected editors, hence my note on your Talk Page. I think, the information is useful, despite being derived from a primary source – it's exactly the sought of data that health care professionals need to find quickly. And, thanks once more to Scray, it's very reassuring to know that you are around :-) Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice to meet you too. Thanks for your understanding and explanation. Keep up the good work. MarnetteD | Talk 23:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

FC on other wikis

Hello, I would like to revive this old idea. Not sure where it stagnated, but with a little work, it can be revived. Dispatches hasn't run anything in a while. I'm looking to see if I can stitch together some interbabel people to collaboratively write this one up. It's still tentative of course; I haven't actually started a page for it, yet =). ResMar 15:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Viruses is back

Hello, We at WikiProject Viruses noticed that you used to be a participant of the project before the project went inactive. We would like to take this opportunity to invite you to become a participant of WikiProject Viruses again. We believe that viruses are an extremely important part of an encyclopedia, and that is why we need you! Our new project coordinator is Thomas888b (talk · contribs).
We hope you seriously consider our invitation. See you there. If you are interested in joining our crew again, please place a notice on Our Talkpage, or you will be removed from our participants list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Viruses at 21:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

WikiProject Viruses

WikiProject Viruses Newsletter Welcome to the WikiProject Viruses Newsletter, You are currently viewing Issue ((DRAFT)), ((date=September 2023)).
Main	New stuff

_{Deliverd by Thomas888b (Say Hi) 19:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)}

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on WP:VIRUS.

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar on behalf of WikiProject Viruses for your work in protecting it from vandalism. Thomas888b (Say Hi) 20:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, Here it is: Hi, thanks for the message on my Talk Page. Yes, I know the project has seen little activity of late and I welcome you attempts to revive it - there's much to be done. How do you see your role as co-ordinator? It would be great to see lots of new articles on viruses and virology, but many of the existing ones needed improving. I am currently working, on and off on, History of viruses and History of virology, although I have a writer's block at the moment. I am also keen to get Hepatitis B to FA. Thoughts? Graham Colm (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan. I felt that WikiProject Viruses was needed, so I decided to attempt to revive it. The histories sound like a good idea to work on. I would be happy if you could bring Hep B to Fa, one of my favorite viruses (Don't Know Why). What do you mean by 'How do you see your role as co-ordinator?' I'm sorry, I'm On UTC, and am getting a tad tired (Up Early). -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 21:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks,
Thomas888b (Say Hi) 20:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

La Stazione changes

I reverted some of the changes you made to La Stazione, and I just wanted to explain why I did.

• "The station was burned down..." implies that it was intentional.
• "The building was neglected..." implies that there was a single owner who allowed the station to become unusable.
• "...threatened by demolision..." the sources describe it as just a possibility.

Thanks for reviewing this, I really think your changes addressed the issues other reviewers brought up. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about my typo ("demolision"). I tried to correct it but had an edit conflict with you. I haven't read the others' reviews yet—I try not to—but my first impression is that the prose lacks flow. I offered my edits as "suggestions" because I don't know anything about the subject, but your responses to the changes that I offered might highlight parts of the text that need of clarification. I will copy this conversation to the FAC discussion so other reviewers are aware of it. I will offer a full review later. PS. I notice that you have included some of my humble suggestions. Best wishes. Graham Colm (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that there were definitely areas where your tweaks lead to improvements, and areas where they made the text less clear. Thanks for reviewing this, I look forward to hearing the rest of your review. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No doubt you have seen that I copied this conversation to the FAC page. I haven't finished reading your contribution yet—and sadly it is past my bedtime now—I look forward to reading the whole article after work tomorrow :) In the meantime, I suggest you might benefit from imagining reading the article through the eyes of a Brummie :) Graham Colm (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

La Stazione FAC

Hey, just a friendly reminder that the FAC for La Stazione is still open. I wouldn't normally prod, but the nomination has been open for two months and I feel it may be archived if enough reviewers don't indicate support, so I'm eager to resolve whatever issues crop up during your review. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me

But WTF? It is appropriate for me to delete something. That I moved it to the article talk page AND deleted it seems to be AGF and appropriate. So, I ask....huh? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, my old friend. Please accept my deepest and sincerest apologies. I am so sorry. It was a misplaced click of my mouse. All those bloody announcements at the top of my watchlist take so long to load, that I must have intended to click on something else and then clicked on your page by mistake (yes, I watch your page of course, and have continued to do so during your absence). I hope you will let me off. Sorry for being so clumsy :-( Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize, because you didn't do anything wrong. I thought I broke some new rule that all stuff must remain on the user talk page until deleted by an admin or something. I'm a bit frustrated with things around here.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose follow-up?

Hi Graham. You opposed the logarithm FAC quite a long time ago. Could you please follow-up your review. Cheers, Randomblue (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC).

FAC Review

Hi Graham. I was wondering if you could look at the Calabozos article for me? It's FAC is going a bit slowly, and I'd really appreciate some prose feedback. Thanks! ceranthor 04:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, the third paragraph of the geography section could use a copyedit. Would you mind fixing it up? Also, thanks for the support. :) ceranthor 19:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Help with Hershey-Chase experiments

Hi Graham, Thanks for your crucial edits on the article about the Hershey-Chase experiments. FYI I provided a review of the article on its peer review page. Best, Ganesh UM BIOE120 Instructor (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ganesh, the Peer Review is very good (even if I say so myself); not all articles get so much feedback. I have made this suggestion on the Talk Page; "Depending on your language skills, it might be worth looking at versions of this article on other language Wikipedia pages. Anyhow, this image [4] is quite good. It does not seem to be available on the Commons, so if you decided to use it, it needs copying across." Graham Colm (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And, I have also made an edit [5] to Okazaki fragment to demonstrate an efficient way to correctly format the references. I have written this comment on Talk:Okazaki fragment, "I agree with Smokefoot's observations above. Meanwhile, I have formatted the current references. This tool [6] saves a lot of time with formatting (there are other tools, but this is one I use). Also notice how references can be named, which saves having to reproduce the full citation when it is used more than once." Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Logarithm FAC

Hi, and thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Logarithm/archive1. I have responded to all the points you raised. In case you disagree, I would appreciate some feedback. If not, it would also be nice to let me (and others) know. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have replied. Best wishes, Graham Colm (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Dragon Quest

Since its closed, I'll respond here since I didn't get the chance to do so before it did. With a few exceptions (like your leveling example).

• The wording is approrpiate. Stuff like localization is wikilinked appropriately and is the closest relevant term (its translation, adaptation to the cultural and changes to comply with any potential legal issues). That's kind of explanation it far too long to be descriptive and why there are wikilinks.
• "beating the game" is correct terminology because you don't "win" the game. Winning also implies you can "lose" the game; in Dragon Quest you can't. There is no "game over" screen ever. That should have been explained it you read the that section. Maybe "finish" might be better.
• You point on the save points is flat out wrong. No ifs ands or buts because it is sourced by a reliable secondary source. That info can only not be included if its not sourced.
• The emdash example is appropriately worded. It is appropriate for interprolations and breaks in thought. It is saying that every game has the slime appear in the first overland areas with monsters, but also saying that the DW7's first area doesn't have any monsters. That's an appropriate use of emdash and complies with WP:MOS. You got a way to make that clearer without emdashes, I'm all for it, but don't go saying its inappropriate when it certainly is.

Finally comparing Halo 3 as an example of good prose is ludicrus. Yes, its a feature article, but its an old FA and it looks not to have been well maintained. I seriously doubt its at FA level today.

Now I understand not wanting to give specific examples, but I can't help but think you don't know what makes good prose nor review sources before making claims that stuff shouldn't be there. Also, like you say pointing out specific examples doesn't help, but nor does saying, to paraphrase, "get this copyedited because I didn't enjoy reading it". What am I suppose to tell any copyeditor how to help fix it?陣内_Jinnai 23:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Khrushchev and Lysenko.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Khrushchev and Lysenko.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The deletion tag just added reads, "We have a free image of the subject. We do not need a non-free one just to show him standing with some other people." The "some other people" includes Nikita Khrushchev. This is the only known picture of Trofim Lysenko and the former Soviet leader. Their relationship was of profound importance to the development (or lack of it) of soviet agronomy. I think the reason given for deletion is deplorable. Graham Colm (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Care to help out?

Hi GrahamColm, I noticed your comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/archive1, and I'd be most appreciative if you'd be willing to help out with specific suggestions for how to improve the prose of Everything Tastes Better with Bacon further in quality for a subsequent FAC. I'm already working on copyediting and getting additional feedback from the community, but I'd really love your assistance. Do you think you could help out? — Cirt (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:August 1914 Bodley Head Cover 1972.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:August 1914 Bodley Head Cover 1972.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

International Space Station

Thank you Graham for your consideration of the ISS article in the FAR. And the how to be nice section is lovely. Penyulap _talk 01:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The red dot

It can actually be fiendishly difficult to spot those microscopic edits. I'm sure I've reverted legit punctuation corrections myself on more than one occasion! JFW | T@lk 22:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you. It's always nice to see that someone appreciates the effort :) DrMicro (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Query

Hi Graham! You opposed the FAC of 2005 Qeshm earthquake on the basis of prose, and rightly so, as the geology section was, and pretty much remains, a cluttered mess. I think it's not so much a problem of poor writing, but redundancy and presentation of too much information. Could you give me a bit more insight on the state of the prose? Admittedly, much of the geology section was written in haste, yet I am having trouble figuring out exactly what to do with it. ceranthor 22:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Even the air we breathe

New Scientist: Your faeces, my furry friend, are blowin' in the wind. Made me pause before taking another breath. Colin°^Talk 15:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

They get rotavirus too. Believe it or not, it is often a strain called K9. [7]. Graham. :-) Graham Colm (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Jovan Vladimir

Hi! Remember that article? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jovan Vladimir/archive1. I've expanded it, included data from a more recent historiography and prominent historians, removed some references regarded as unreliable, etc. I would very much appreciate if a native speaker, and a quality content contributor like you, copy-edited the article. If or when you feel like it, you are very welcome :) I would only keep two paragraphs in the lead, i.e., I would not fragment them into smaller paragraphs (per WP:LEAD#Length; it has less than 25,000 characters). Cheers! Vladimir (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I would just like the prose to be in accordance with the article's GA status. No ambitions currently to candidate it for FA. Vladimir (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Holiday

Graham,

We continue to struggle with the scope and title of the virus history article. I've not had any time to think about it this week, and have been meaning to re-read those virus books while sat at my PC so I can make some notes of things to use. I'm off on holiday shortly for a week so you'll have to find inspiration from elsewhere for now. Sorry I've not been much help lately. Btw, Zimmer's parasite book is good. P187: "There are about four thousand species of mammals, and aside from a few rabbits and deer waiting in some obscure forest to be discovered, that number is firm. But there are five thousand species of tapeworms known so far, and new species are discovered every year. There are two hundred thousand species of parasitic wasps. The insects that are parasites of plants number in the hundreds of thousands as well. Add them all up, and the majority of animals are parasitic. Untold thousands of fungi, plants, protozoa, and bacteria also proudly bear the title of parasites." I couldn't believe the number of parasitic wasps. Colin°^Talk 18:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Colin,

Have a great holiday and thanks again for HeLa. One of my students has borrowed it on a "return it or die basis". I haven't bought Zimmer's parasites yet - but I will. Don't worry about the virus history article, I'm no longer in a rush to get it to FA. There was a discussion on Radio 4 this week on the huge number of undiscovered species, but I don't recall parasitic wasps getting a mention. Let's hope they have all been discovered - I hate wasps. :-) Graham Colm (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Like a Prayer

Dear Graham, I have a favor to as k of you. Since you are good at copyscape searches, will you do a search for the article "Like a Prayer"? If its okay with you. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Legolas, Copyscape only found some duplicated content on You Tube here [8]. This was probably pasted from our article. Graham Colm (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Graham, yeah it seems so that the YouTube content is a Wikipedia mirror. By they way, the reason I asked you is because I will be eventually taking the article to FAC, so unknowingly if I added any content not needed, it can be removed before the nomination. Thanks again. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 17:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome, and it saves me having to check later :-) Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted

an edit at Antonie van Leeuwenhoek and looked back at my watchlist and there you were. Good work. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Wong Kim Ark (domicil vs. domicile)

Hi. You changed the word "domicil" to "domicile" in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, with an edit summary of "source has 'domicile'". But when I look at the source document for this part of the article, I see it using "domicil". I do know that this is an older (indeed, archaic) spelling, and that many people today will assume it must be a typo — which is why I added a bracketed "e" where this same phrase occurs in the infobox. Do you think that might be a proper way to deal with "domicil" in the text? Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, probably yes. There is "still enjoying a permanent domicile and residence therein at San Francisco", here [9] but, "and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicil and residence therein at said city and county of San Francisco, State aforesaid" here [10]. My old, paper, copy of The Shorter Oxford Dictionary only gives "domicile" dating from the 18th century. This might be a case of WP:ENGVAR – I don't have a dictionary of American English. So I would include the bracketed "e" just to show readers that it is not a typo. Sorry if I have caused you needless concern. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll do that. Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Geezz, that was a quick reply. :-) Graham Colm (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape request

Hi Graham, I've noticed that you do Copyscape checks for featured article candidates. Could you do me a favour and check Charles Boycott, and raise any issues at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles Boycott/archive1? Many thanks for your time, Quasihuman | Talk 09:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There were no issues. I have commented at the FAC. Good luck. Graham Colm (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Chusovaya River photo

FYI (it was your old 2007 upload on en.wiki transferred to Commons). Materialscientist (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have replied there. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Pause for thought

You comment at the FAC for Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil has given me pause for thought. Far from seeing the "beautifully written and engaging" prose that you did I saw I work in progress, a bit clunky in several places. Perhaps I'm expecting too much of an FA? Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil has been promoted

Graham, Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil has been promoted and now it's a Featured Article. I came here to tell you that I'd like to thank you for having given your support. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome and congratulations; but Malleus was right to point out that my review missed issues—no excuse, but I was preparing for a short Wikibreak and wanted to leave you with an encouraging comment. But it's great to see that these issues were resolved in an amicable and constructive way. Best wishes to you Lecen, and well done. I look forward to seeing the article on the Main Page. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Virus

"why the apostrophe?" => typo on my part. I meant to have single quotes around the term 'quasi-equivalence' but if you think it doesn't need them its good with me.DrMicro (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, no I don't think they are needed. Just as we wouldn't put them around Euclidean geometry. But I think the addition of the definitions of Triangulation Number and how these apply to the structure of viral capsids will be difficult for some readers to follow in its current format. It's something I deliberately avoided, to be honest. I now have second thoughts on this, since it is in the textbooks. I'll give this some thought and perhaps we could discuss this on the Virus Talk Page? By the way, I thought it was a poor show when Inovirus was tagged for deletion four minutes after you created it. I wouldn't have "redlinked" all those species mind you, it'll be years before all those articles are created. Best wishes. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again for your kind words. I agree with you over the triangulation number page. The explanation *is* a bit tricky without decent diagrams but the T = xyz is a recurrent theme in the virology of iscosahedral viruses. Along with their size it is the distinguishing feature for many of them on EM. (EM is very much in use as a diagnostic tool for samples with unknown viruses. PCR is only so much use when the genomes whose genes have no known homology.) I have been thinking of creating one so that all the viral pages with T = xyz notes on them can link to it. This T = xyz used to bug the heck out of me when I first came across it and I'm sure its the same now for anyone coming across it for the first time. BTW if you have some decent diagrams that can be used on WP for this page I would be very grateful for them.

Re redlinks: That isn't necessarily true. The CTX phage carries the cholera toxin so IMHO that alone needs a page. Some of the other viruses in that group also can carry the cholera toxin - a relatively recent discovery. I haven't yet figured out *all* the viruses that do carry it - its on the ToDo list - but all the known ones belong to this group. Given the importance of this toxin in the pathogenesis of cholera it was going to be close to the top of my ToDo list - I had planned a bit more on the other ssDNA viruses first. It's a major pain to create a page, then track down the genus, copy the virus name into the genus page and make sure it all works. Its a lot easier to create a page if the name of the virus is on the page in front of you. I have created hundreds of pages for biological species off such listings. I have left a note for the editor who deleted it to see what he/she says. IMHO its much better to light a candle (by creating a page) than to bewail the darkness (deleting species names because they are red linked). But as they say - your mileage may vary.DrMicro (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

On a different topic I am thinking of creating a couple of templates for the viruses once the families are checked over. The current one with the Baltimore classification is too much for a single page (IMHO). I was thinking of one for the dsDNA, ssDNA, dsRNA, dsRNA viruses. The other groups seem a little small perhaps to justify a separate template. I would be very grateful for your thoughts on this.DrMicro (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

We have to be careful about Wikipedia policies on this. I think the definition of triangulation numbers would be better placed in Capsid rather than Virus. I have used EM and PCR to discover viruses – and had one success with the former method. In my experience, triangulation numbers are not that important in clinical virology and EM is not used very often these days for routine detection of viruses. We use serology and PCR. Perhaps you are a plant virologist? I'm a clinical one, so maybe our experiences differ. I find the Baltimore Classification useful in teaching and I don't think it's too much for a single page. In fact, given this is an encyclopaedia and not a virology journal, I think separate templates for different viral replication methods would overwhelm our readers. It's difficult knowing when to stop adding information. I could have given the consensus RNA sequences for all the genomic RNAs of rotavirus when I wrote the article – but one has to stop and let PubMed take over at some point. With regard to your later comments, please be careful of original research and the use of primary and secondary sources especially when writing about "a relatively recent discovery". Graham Colm (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

EM is extremely useful for classification of viruses from environmental sources where no one has a clue what kind of viruses they are. Examples of this include the Sulfolobus turreted icosahedral virus and the Malacoherpesviridae. It has been invaluable in the delimination of several families that infect archaea such as the Bicaudaviridae. In clinical virology most of the likely organisms are fairly well know and it is of less use than serology or PCR there.

I was thinking of creating an entirely separate page for triangulation number where capsid and the viruses can link to.

What I had in mind for the templates was similar to that for the classification of the Apicomplexa which is IMHO quite useful. Here is the page I had in mind

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Alveolata

DrMicro (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

copyscape access

Do you have a paid account there? I get the site has exceeded monthly quota message when trying. Brad (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I pay for premium searches. Graham Colm (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If your budget allows please check the current articles listed at Wikipedia:Featured article review. I guess you're paying 5 cents a search though. Brad (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Brad, what you ask is more demanding on my time than my money :-) Copyscape does not set off buzzers and bells when it detects duplicated content – it displays a list of links to websites with similar content. Following the links than shows the matching content highlighted. Then I have to check the possibility that the material was originally derived from Wikipedia. Often this involves delving into an article's history – sometimes as far back as a year – in attempt to establish priority. Wikipedia's content is significantly reused (often without attribution), and although I have begun to recognise quickly the sites that often do this, it can be difficult and requires judgement. For established articles, such as those that are at FAR, the task is more onerous because of their longevity and subsequent, more frequent copying of their content by other sites. So, I can't really commit the time needed for your request, sorry. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right. It's more involved than I thought. Thanks for explaining. Brad (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Rochester Castle

Graham, I would have thought commas rather than dashes ought to be used: "... their construction, in the wake of the conquest of 1066, helped the Normans ..." rather than "their construction – in the wake ... of 1066 – helped the Normans". See Comma#Parenthetical_phrases or MOS:COMMA. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

See also WP:EMDASH. The choice is pretty much stylistic – that's why I called it a "suggestion" in my edit summary. Graham Colm (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I note subsection 2 of WP:EMDASH says "Dashes can clarify the sentence structure when there are already commas or parentheses, or both." which rather suggests to me that dashes should be a fallback position. Ultimately you are quite correct though that it is a matter of style, so I'll bow to your judgement. I certainly don't wish to provoke a lengthy discussion about minutiae! Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I mention you here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) again at Featured article candidacies

Hey GrahamColm, I see you were a reviewer at one of Sevastopol's many reviews. As it's last FAC was closed due to low participation, I"d like you to come and review it for it's current FAC, in order to get a better picture of its current situation. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Fluorine FAC =

Hey there! You participated at the previous fluorine FAC, so it may be interesting for you to know a new FAC has been started. A little of new content has been added since, so feel free to comment it. A support vote would be surely welcome, but so will be every comment :) Thanks--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A new medical resource

Please note that there is a new freely accessible medical resource, MedMerits (to which I'm a medical advisor) on neurologic disorders. A discussion on ELs to MedMerits and medical ELs in general is currently in progress ("Wikipedia and its relationship to the outside world"). Presto54 (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Only you can see it

Just a quick note to say that I saw your now-removed note at the Village Pump: that page is just Special:Preferences, so only you can see it. The information is copied over as a result of the unified login system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

As you can tell, my Chinese is the pits, I was correcting the Virus page over there [11] and I thought I had clicked on Page History :-) Thanks. Graham Colm (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Georges Bizet

Hi, Graham. Just to let you know I've closed the peer review; I'd have welcomed further comments from you, but fortunately several editors chipped in helpfully. I've nominated it at FAC, so please feel free to add your pennyworth there. Brianboulton (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Brian, I have been following the PR and saw you close it. I'm sorry that I wasn't v. helpful - not that you need my help :-) It's a wonderful article and I am looking forward to the FAC. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello there

Hi there. Seen your work around the FAC and I was wondering if you could please take a quick look at an article I've been working on. It's pretty long, so maybe you can just take a quick scan of a section (intro+ writing and recording, or influence and sound etc) and just let me know what you think. If you're too busy, then that's fine. Hoping to take it to FAC in a couple months (album is still charting, so I'm not too hasty). Orane (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I recall an exchange with you over a wrongly identified split infinitive. Your responsive was dismissive and this gives me the impression that you would be a difficult editor to work with. Graham Colm (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk about holding grudges... nevermind and happy editing. Orane (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Blonde on Blonde

GrahamColm, Thanks for your nifty copy editing and for your support. "Somebody got lucky, but it was an accident"—'Pledging My Time'. Mick gold (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome—I thoroughly enjoyed reading the article. Graham Colm (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks from me, too! Moisejp (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

FAC review

Hey GrahamColm, I noticed you around at the FAC page. Although some may not take your criticism well, I do enjoy a thorough and constructive review for the articles I nominate. If you have time, I'd appreciate it if you could give my own FAC a look. Thanks and cheers, Auree ★ 22:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Otis

hello,

I saw you on FAC very often, and often commented about the prose. I think you have very good English skills, so (if you have enough time) a copyedit on the article Otis Redding, on which I am working so long, because I want to bring it so badly to FA status, would be excellent. It is currently a GAN, but the prose is not "clear and precise". Thanks.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 10:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pumpkin, I enjoyed reading the article and I have made a few changes. Sorry, I don't have time for a thorough copy-edit. The prose is quite good but it needs a little more work to improve the flow. This is an example, "he sang in a school band after having taken drum and singing lessons from the age of 10". The two parts of the sentence don't connect well and the two facts need to be separated. Try to avoid slang when possible such as "blew the ending". And this sentence does not make sense, "This is due to cutbacks of gigs, in which the house band, Booker T. and the MG's and the Memphis Horns, would later perform". It could just be deleted as it does not explain why the songs were written so quickly. You have to decide if you need to use citations in the Lead. I see nothing controversial there, and as long as the information is cited in the body of the article, you don't need them. But make sure that there is nothing in the Lead that is not given in more detail in the body of the article. Best wishes, Graham Colm (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Do you think it currently fails criteria 1 of WP:GA? --♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

That decision rests with the editor who has taken on the GA review. Graham Colm (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

for your help just now Graham with the links on bacteriophage edits. No missing links! TonyClarke (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Why

do you have such a problem with it? Other people use it. I would never interfere with someone else's review. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 21:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Calvin, templates can dramatically slow down the loading time of pages for readers who rely on slow servers, please don't assume that they are all as fast as ours in the UK. They were not needed on this discussion, which can easily be archived to clear any perceived clutter. And there are no restrictions on other editors "interfering" with reviews. In fact, I have found some of your recent objections to GA promotions on prose grounds to be questionable, but I decided not to interfere. Anyhow, I thank you for following WP:1RR and if you want to restore the templates, go ahead. Graham Colm (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't edit warred. So why did you remove them if you have just said I can restore them? Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 22:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I gave you the wrong link (long day) see WP:BRD. If you think my reasons are wrong or of trivial importance than revert. Let's not get our underpants in a twist over this. Graham Colm (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I think the resolved template works well, because it clearly shows that things have been addressed and things haven't been missed or forgotten. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 22:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Best Thing I Never Had

Are you a fan of the song? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Jivesh, I have never heard it. I was just trying to help with the prose :-) Graham Colm (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter. Please continue with the prose. I really need someone to do something before I take it to FAC. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 20:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

OK Jivesh, I can't promise much but I will help where I can. In the meantime I suggest you try to reduce the number of occurrences of "Best Thing I Never Had". It's the title of the article, so you don't need to repeat it. Just say "the song" or "it". Best wishes, Graham, Graham Colm (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure and thank you. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings Graham. How are you? Have you finished the c/e? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Missed my message? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Jivesh, I got tied up with other issues. The article is on my watchlist but I haven't found the time to edit it. Sorry. Graham Colm (talk) 06:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter. Take your time. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Fused particple

Hi. Thanks for entering the discussion on Baffle gab1978's talk page. I had never heard the term "fused participle", and of course, to know the term is to be able to Google for it. Much appreciated. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. Please keep using those participle phrases; they are a sign of good writing. And don't worry too much about the fused ones. These can often be used without anyone noticing. Graham Colm (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

<grin> Yes indeed. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)