User talk:Brianboulton/Archive22

John Barbirolli

I've been working on this article and have now put it forward for PR. I know the multitudinous demands on your time, but if you could squeeze Barbirolli in I'd be most grateful. (Perfectly understand if not) - Tim riley (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Barbirolli looks a winner. Believe it or not, as a small child I actually saw Barbirolli conduct Beethoven's 7th Symphony - not the valedictory performance referred to in the article, but a little earlier. It will be a pleasure to look at it, though this may take a few days, because I'm having some computer problems at present (I'm using an ancient borrrowed laptop while my own is being resuscitated in intensive care). But I'll definitely do it. Brianboulton (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

And mightily grateful I am for it. Thank you! By way of reciprocating I am at your service to comment at FAC stage on Gustav Mahler. Unlike Barbirolli I am hopelessly unsound on Mahler, and would be unlikely to contribute much during the writing stage. But I have the following books on my shelves which may be apropos in parts: a biography of Henry Wood; Peter Heyworth's Conversations with Klemperer; the complete music criticism of GBS; and The Record Guide, 1956 edition, which has an article on Mahler that illustrates how he was seen in England before the Mahler boom of the 1960s. (Is it unduly cynical to note that the Mahler boom began in or about the year he came out of copyright?) Happy to delve in these books for Mahleriana if wanted. – Tim riley (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about the Wood biography. The Heyworth book should have interesting material; I can probably get it from ILL. I have the Shaw criticisms. The 1956 article looks intriguing - do you have the author's name? I wonder if it echoes Julius Harrison's put-down of a few years earlier, relating to Mahler's symphonies: "...interesting at times but laboriously put together and lacking that vital spark of inspiration that made Beethoven's nine the only nine springing direct from the nine muses." Or Dyneley Hussey: "It is not improbable that, of Mahler's music, posterity will cling to the songs and let the rest go..." before writing some rather dismissive things about the larger-scale Mahler works which include words like "ridiculous", "literal-minded" and "megalomania". Strong stuff indeed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have temporarily uploaded a scan of the Record Guide essay (1955 - not 1956 as I said) to my website whence you can, if you wish, download a copy here - Tim riley (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic! Have downloaded it, many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

At the end of your peer review comments you asked me to let you know which category I decided to nominate the Barbirolli article for. I have gone for GA: it doesn't seem to me to be quite weighty enough for FA. Many thanks for all your help on this. - Tim riley (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, though it looks good FA material to me. Perhaps later? Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

The process does seem to be quite leisurely. dabomb explained to me that its often hard to get comments on things tat arent sport or pop culture. There was certainly a little rush towards the end after they put Bc on the special attention list. Your list looks good though I notice that one is out of order on the sort by number. Im off to the boozer for the London wikimeet so cant fix it now.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Peer review of Mount Albert by-election, 2009

Thanks for your review of the Mount Albert by-election, 2009 article. I appreciate your criticism. Regarding your last bullet point about swing: I am having trouble understanding why the swing should be the average of the rise and fall of two parties' votes. At swing (politics)#Calculation, the method used gives the current data (+4.02%). I realise that that this is the swing for an individual candidate, but then is there such thing as the swing for the election overall?

Thanks again, Adabow (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My calculation is for the two-party swing, which is the only swing calculation we recognise in the UK. Maybe things are seen differently in Canada. Brianboulton (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In New Zealand, which is the only relevant place, your method of swing is not used. Adabow (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant New Zealand , not Canada! Brianboulton (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle at FAC

I know you're having computer problems but wanted to let you know that I've sent this article to FAC. Thanks very much for your input in PR—the article wouldn't have gotten to FAC without it. Jonyungk (talk) 07:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words in support of this article, and I have a question. I agree with your point that the Legacy section should be about the legacy of Tchaikovsky's association with the circle; this would cover the first paragraph of that section. The rest of the section talks about the legacy of the circle itself, which is getting off-target. Would you suggest cutting the rest of the section? This would leave the section itself pretty short but considerably more tightly focused. After looking at the article again this morning, I am leaning toward this direction but would really appreciate a second opinion. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with your preferred solution. Perhaps replace the last few paragraph a very brief summary indicating the direction the Belyayev circle took after Tchaikovsky's death. I suggest, however, that before making a final decision you contact Ruhrfisch, who is also supporting, and see what he says. Brianboulton (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I will contact Ruhrfisch as well. Thanks for the advice. Jonyungk (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) Ruhrfisch had some good suggestions on the FAC page for incorporating Tchaikovsky more closely into the body of the Legacy section, which I incorporated. However, Ruhrfisch felt he was too close to the ideas to judge their overall effect in the section well, and I am too close to the material as well. Could you possibly take one more look at that section and let us know what you think? Jonyungk (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the second opinion. Glad to know the section works better now. Jonyungk (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Just thought you'd like to know that the article was just promoted. I really appreciate everything you've done for it. Jonyungk (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, but yes, if it weren't for you, this article might not have made it "out of the traps", as you phrased it. You really did a lot, for which I remain thankful. Jonyungk (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congrats on the well-deserved star for Voyage of the Karluk. Finetooth (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Mine too - great work Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Brian, I would never in a million years pick up a book on the Arctic explorations, but I always enjoy the articles you craft from them. It was a pure pleasure to read this one today. Karanacs (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you all for the kind words and support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And congrats from me too. You must be one of the most prolific producers of FAs.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Same here. Just read the article today and am in the same category as Karanacs—I'd probably never pick up a book on Arctic exploration but sat glued to your article from beginning to end. Jonyungk (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Will get to it shortly

Even though it has passed FA, I still intend to give that doomed ship of the North my comments. I just have not had much time for wiki the last few days. I hope to get to you next few days.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine. As I shan't be watching that talkpage, please give me a buzz when you have spoken - I'll be most interested. By the way, I hope to add some comments on Scalia soon. Brianboulton (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. You don't watch your FAs once they make it? I do mine, I find that otherwise they tend to deteriorate.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a few of them, and with the other pages I need to watch the list becomes unmanageable, so I do regular spot-checks on old FAs to try and keep them in order. I also update for new images, policy changes (e.g. alt text), and being an inveterate nitpicker I sometimes nibble at the prose, too. Depends what else is on, and whether I've got a working computer which, thankfully, I now have again. Brianboulton (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I keep all of mine watchlisted and now and then I have to put out brushfires or reverse unhelpful edits. I continue to work on a few of them, I've improved the 1950 Senate election article by obtaining additional sources, with the 60th anniversary of the election this fall I want it in top condition for TFA.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

PR problems

Thanks for the heads up - I deleted the duplicate PR request for the Shakespeare article (after moving the comments made there to the first PR).

As for Dave Smallen, it looks like he is possibly notable, so I asked for an opinion at the Alternative Music WikiProject. Agree this is not ready for PR. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

I have a question arosed from the Spanish FAC. Which is the cause of the deafness? Was it syphilis? According to [1] it was that. And the cause of death? Siphilis or senile dementia, why it is unclear? OboeCrack (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The deafness may have been the result of syphilis, but the common assumption that Smetana had syphilis has been questioned on the basis of recent medical investigations, as stated in the article. So the questions of the cause of his deafness and his death remain open. Brianboulton (talk) 09:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

New question: Is the throat infection and the ear obstruction a first consequence of the deafness? The article says By the summer Smetana was ill; a throat infection was followed by a rash and an apparent blockage to the ears. Shall I assume that this caused the subsequent deafness or it was caused by the syphilis or the syphilis caused all the symptoms? I'm really confused. OboeCrack (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing to be confused about. I have already explained that there are different opinions as to whether he had syphilis or not. If he did, it may be that the syphilis caused all his symptoms, but I am not a physician so I can't say. You can only write what is available from the sources, and you can't always resolve all issues. Any further questions regarding this matter should be on the article talkpage, rather than here. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Just thought you'd like to know that I nominated Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov for featured article of the day for March 18, which is R-K's birthday. Jonyungk (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the support. Jonyungk (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria

Thanks for the heads-up on this article going to PR soon. Please keep me informed. I've already read through it once but look forward to seeing what else you may do with it. Jonyungk (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know this article is at FAC. I have voted in support of its promotion. This article is really up to your high standards and has improved in clarity since PR. Then again, do you ever write a bad article? :) Seriously, you have really done a great job. Jonyungk (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks again. I find it easier to write or review articles when I have a real feeling for the subject matter. The extra effort seems worthwhile then. On which note, the redesigned Gustav Mahler is just beginning to emerge; the sections dealing with his early life and his early conducting career have been posted. I'm not asking for reviews yet, but please feel free to read and comment as the article's development proceeds. Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Meckiff

Thanks for the review and keeping me on my toes. I've gone through it again and replied YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again Brian, I've done the other clarifications. Hope they work YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for the pick-up. I've attended to your comments; Anonymous Dissident and Laser brain have agreed to take a look at the writing YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States/archive1

Thanks a ton for all your comments and suggestions. I've implemented most of them,

• Removed the timelines
• Center-aligned the dates/dashes
• Removed the highlighting for Chief Justices and double dagger for the current Chief Justice. Now, all Chief Justices simply have a dagger next to their name. Obviously, we know who current one is because he is listed as "Currently serving" in the last column.
• Added "(acting)" next to the dates in the "Term as Chief Justice" for those justices who served as Chief temporarily.

Now, I agree about getting rid of the Term as Chief and Retirement columns. The retirement dates are quite clear from the other information already there. I will merge the Chief Justice term dates into the "Active Service" column for those who served both as an associate and as a chief similar to how the info in the "Appointed by" column appears for those same justices.

The only problem is that the table is not a standalone table, but rather a template using Template:Start U.S. judgeship and Template:U.S. judgeship row, which are used for all the lists of U.S. federal judges. Those columns would need to be made optional. Do you know the easiest way to do this? My attempt at it didn't really work. Rorschach 12:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a very technical guy, so the short answer is, I don't know. But I have had good technical advice in the past from helpful admins so I'll see what I can find out on your behalf. Brianboulton (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok great, well if you do find out let me know. I will see if I can't figure it out as well. Rorschach 12:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the two templates and do not know how to make the columns optional. I can ask Niagara, who is pretty good with templates. I also replied at the PR. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. Perhaps Rorschach should take the mattr up with Niagara? Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked Niagara already - might also want to ask on the Legal WikiProject page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Niagara has already fixed it - see the PR page for details. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for arranging this. Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Rhodes

Thanks for the Harrow information, I will include it in the next day or two. Thanks for your comments so far as well. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Before I put it in, do you have a page number for the ref? Thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I do apologise - its p. 473. Brianboulton (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thought I'd reply here as it's not directly related to the Rhodes article. In the Manchester Test, the story goes that Hawke and McLaren so hated each other and disagreed over selection that McLaren was choosing people that Hawke did not approve of. To stop this, Hawke selected eleven players for Manchester and a twelfth, Fred Tate, who he though McLaren could not possibly pick. McLaren is supposed to have said "My God, look what they've sent me!" and proceeded to pick Tate and left out (I think) Hirst. And we all know what happened next! I think the story is in the Greatest Ashes Battles book but I don't know where it originally comes from. Possibly Cardus, but it's not quite admiring enough of McLaren I think. Fry might mention it. So I'm not sure how reliable it is. What a series! --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have a very big cricket library so I can't check the story out. Now that you mention Tate it seems vaguely familiar but, as you say, it doesn't relate to Rhodes. Brianboulton (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the peer review. I've addressed most of the points, just a few things to do and I'd appreciate advice on the final wisden quote. Thanks for all you've done with the article; it was a fantastic help. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

More...

The quality of Smetana's production of Glinka's A Life for the Tsar angered Glinka's champion Mily Balakirev, who expressed himself forcefully. Does it refer to its high quality that caused envy, or bad quality (in this case is obvious why he might be angry)? Please in your article is not clear. Please reply asap. OboeCrack (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what it was that angered Balakirev, only that he didn't like the production. I'd guess it wasn't its high quality that made him cross, he was a Glinka disciple. He had his own views about how Glinka's work should be staged, and presumably Smetana's production didn't, in his view, match up. I don't see any cause for confusion here (nor has anyone else), and the statement exactly matches the sources. The main point is that Balakirev and Smetana fell out over this production; the exact details as to why they did are not specially relevant. Brianboulton (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

File:Alpha Capricorni.jpg		Thank You
		For your excellent and wonderful contributions at Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates during the month of February 2010, you're truly a star! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Christ myth theory peer review

Hi, I've recently submitted the Christ myth theory article for peer review. Given your interests listed on the PR volunteers page and your experience, I think your comments could be very helpful here. Thank you. Eugene (talk)

I will certainly read it. I saw the article during its recent brief appearance at FAC but it was whisked away before I had a chance to look at it it or the review comments. Because of other commitments it may take me a few days. Incidentally, have you read a book by my near-namesake, David Boulton: Who On Earth Was Jesus?, published by John Hunt Publishing in 2008? It certainly looks as though it addresses questions raised in this article. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't say that I've read that one. But if you think that it adds a something that's currently missing from the article, feel free to let us know. Eugene (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all the effort you've put into the PR process for us. Most of your recommended changes have been made at this point (a couple that haven't are being mediated currently). You mentioned that you were planning to add some comments regarding sourcing and footnotes; are those still in the works? I'd love to see them--it's been a contentious point at times. Eugene (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've not had time to do this yet and I'm not sure I'll have time to do it properly, but I'll try and leave a couple of notes within the next 24 hours. Brianboulton (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Early warning

I'm hoping to get Canadian federal election, 1957 to Peer Review by the weekend. More of that midfielder for Bayern Munich, I see no point in not milking out everything you can from your references. By then I hope to be refreshed and restart on Emperor Meiji. After that, I'll work on Douglas=Home, but images are a problem there.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea on the 1957 election. Perhaps, this time round...Diefenbaker loses!! I'll look forward to it (the article, I mean). Brianboulton (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but if he lost, sooner or later you'd have had a Social Credit PM, and those guys were not nice people. It is at PR though I still have to play with the images and put in alt text. The '57 election is studied in a way the '58 election was not. If I was going to do '58 I'd want to spend a couple of days at various archives, and I don't have any immediate plans to go to Canada.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've got some prior promises to keep, but I'll get to it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria

I will be glad to take a look at it, will hope fully have something for you to look at too very soon. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case; when the PR backlog starts to rise it's usually because you have something good in the pipeline. You'll do well to top the waterfalls, though. (I hope to start attacking the backlog today) Brianboulton (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! (and thanks for the thanks) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Congrats! I am sorry, I did not notice it was there. Not an opera I ever saw, when I was going through my opera phase ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Loud applause! A most worthwhile promotion. Yours to command if the Riley research service can help with your imminent Mahlerian labours at any point. - Tim riley (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, for a start, any comment on List of compositions by Gustav Mahler at peer review would be helpful. This is a sort of apéritif for the main Gustav Mahler biography, which is slowly coming into shape but still needs much content creation and further editing before it is half ready to show its face in public. I'll give you a buzz when it's a bit more developed. Brianboulton (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a peak at it, though lists aren't my thing. I've started work on Gough Whitlam a former FA which ran as TFA in its prior incarnation, but it would be nice to have it back at FA. I might be able to use the refs as a twofer to bring Australian constitutional crisis of 1975 to FA. Home is still on the agenda, but I want to see if I can get more images of him from the National Archives, and that means a trip to College Park, which I won't have time to go for a couple of weeks.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll look carefully at the Mahler list. Meanwhile - possibly too late to be of use - I am told by a friend who hoards his opera programmes that Il ritorno d'Ulisse, has in fact, been done at the ENO, in June 1992, with Anthony Rolfe Johnson as Ulysses and Jean Rigby as Penelope; the conductor was Nicholas Kok. He reminds me too that the Glyndebourne production was brought to the RAH for a Prom in 1972 with a much starrier cast, including Janet Baker as Penelope. - Tim riley (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I know about the Glyndebourne Prom; I cut this from the article in the interests of saving space. I can't find any references to or reviews of the ENO production under Nicholas Kok, it seems to have slipped under the radar. If you can find a source, I'll slip in a reference to this production. Brianboulton (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't let me browbeat you! But if you want The Observer's review it is temporarily here] Tim riley (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Great. I'll try and deal with it in a day or two. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Liberalism FAC

I just wanted to thank you for deciding to help us! I look forward to working with you on improving the article.UberCryxic ^(talk) 19:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The FAC nomination has been withdrawn. I have opened a new peer review. I look forward to your comments and hope to re-nominate for FAC in the next few weeks after resolving our disputes. Thank you in advance for your help.UberCryxic ^(talk) 00:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this is wise. Please bear in mind that it can take several days or even longer to get significant feedback on PR, but it will come. Brianboulton (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: the GAN has been removed for now. We'll do the PR first. I hope to see you there!UberCryxic ^(talk) 00:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final peer review

Thank you for your edits and comments of this article as a peer reviewer. I have followed up on all of the suggested edits and other items. I've asked a few questions in my follow up, so please have a look at those when you get a moment. I look forward to your further review comments when you return. You have been very helpful and provided great suggestions and feedback. Thanks again! --SkotyWA^T_C 23:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again for the rest of your comments in this article's peer review. I've finally gotten enough time to address them all (or ask a follow up question). Sorry that I was not able to get through them sooner than now. This week has been full for me at work and home so I didn't have much time. At your earliest convenience, please take a look at my followup comments/questions. --SkotyWA^T_C 02:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom Crean (explorer)

The above article has been submitted to TFAR (link). Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Great choice for St Paddy' Day! Needs a bit of attention though, which I am giving it. Brianboulton (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Mahler's list

Your impressive list made me link once more to cantata - an article I hesitate to link to. I am in the process to deal with the Bach cantatas especially - work in progress towards his birthday (soon!), comments welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for tweaking the Mahler list. As to the Bach cantatas, his birthday is almost upon us. Perhaps aiming to develop the article for the 360th anniversary of his death (28 July) would be more feasible? Brianboulton (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to celebrate birthdays, smile. And a start is better than nothing - and better than the "cantata" already, I would say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Today I started Christian Gerhaher and came across Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen - "lacking citations", but what might be cited in such a case, a poem is a poem ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Various statements made in the article's "introduction" and "translation" sections need citing to sources, as do the interpretative summaries for each poem. The poems themselves, of course, does not require citation. To be comprehensive, the article could do with some further information on the background to the writing of the piece, briefly touched on in the lead. There should also be some performance and reception history, and perhaps some reference to current recorded versions. Brianboulton (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Mahler PR

Remember to have some Mahler work left over for next year's centenary of his death. I wonder whether there are any recordings of him conducting that could be a featured sound.

I'm happy to have a look at it tomorrow or Friday, but you will be my first PR.

BTW, I'm hoping that the Proms do everything orchestral by him over these two years. They did a symphonic cycle one year in the 1990s, but I should like the chance to hear Klagende Lied live.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll look forward to your comments. I'm sure the Proms will do Mahler proud. Maybe they'll even do Das Klagende Lied in the original version rather than the 1901 revision. As for next year, I would think that the articles for either Das Lied von der Erde or the Eighth Symphony could be made into a splendid WP tribute on the death centenary. The possibility of a featured sound with GM conducting is certainly worth investigating. At the moment I'm looking for soundfiles to incorporate into the biography, too. Brianboulton (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at [2], the best that can be done is a piano roll of his playing.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I've got delayed due to problems with the sock/meatpupepts at JIDF and producing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Einsteindonut. I'll have a look at the article during the week.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I finally commented yesterday.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Meckiff

Hi Brian, I think you might have misunderstood my remarks at YM's talk page. I have vast respect for your writing and copyediting abilities (evidence of which should be my request that you peer review my opera page). What I meant is that I just didn't see that much I would change, and you and Graham did. Maybe different "tastes" isn't the right word for it. Different perspectives? I've read a lot of YM's prose, on cricket and other topics, so I'm used to it. I don't dispute your stance on the article—I just recognize that I fell short trying to recognize what you'd like improved. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly took no offence—just clarifying my position, really. In my view the article is coming on well, and a week more's work should see it up and running again. Brianboulton (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Saganagan Orogeny

I will be glad to take a look at it and can make some standard comments. Thanks for the heads up, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Posted some comments there and on Brian Fitzgerald (academic) too - if you come across articles that are not really ready for PR, I would be glad to post some fairly standard comments on their PR pages. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Royal National College for the Blind

Hi Brian. Sorry to bother you again. I'm thinking of nominating the article for FAC in the next few days and was wondering whether you could take a quick look at it. I've added a few things and made one or two changes since the peer review. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The article looks in good shape. I haven't time at the moment to go through the prose in detail, but the issues I raised in the brief peer review appear to have been dealt with, and the finished product looks comprehensive. I've certainly seen a lot worse at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I'll put it forward in the next couple of days and see what happens. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Smetana Artículo Destacado

Thanks for creating such a beautiful article! Now it is FA in the Spanish wikipedia. The next one to come will be es:Chaikovski y Los Cinco by Jonyungk, which is in es:WP:CAD. If I have more time I will start with Rimsky-Korsakov or the other Tchaikosvky & circle, until you've done with Mahler. Personally, with no offense, I find your articles more easy to translate and understand than Jonyungk's. Nevertheless I can always ask him if I have any concerns regarding the meaning of some sentences. To sum up, I just want you to thank you again!

		The Music Barnstar
		I deeply aprecciate all your work and dedication to the project, specially with such interesting articles. I'll try to translate all of them as a symbol of recognition. Thank you, Brianboulton! OboeCrack (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your gracious gift and kind words. I am pleased to think that the Smetana article will reach a wider readership, and I hope our Spanish-speaking friends enjoy it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)