User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 32

PR

I will be glad to look at the Orfeo PR. I have never known of any restriction on an article being at both PR and GAN at the same time, and I just looked at WP:GAN and the linked pages there and found no such restrictions. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I was surpirsed how quickly the FAC closed in the end, though it was open for about 3 weeks. Formal thank spam to follow - it has been a busy day, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi, I have responded to some issues you brought up at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fehlandt Lentini/archive1. But there still are some that need to be clarified. Thanks. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 07:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Exelon Pavilions thanks

	<font=3> Thanks for your source review and support for Exelon Pavilions, which is now a Featured article, and for all you do on Wikipedia! .--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe we have addressed all the remaining issues from the FAC on Talk:Exelon Pavilions Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For the thorough review and much constructive criticism. I will address these issues as I find time to do so. I am considering moving the page at your suggestion. My current options are Taurus-Littrow valley and Taurus-Littrow (lunar valley). I like the former, as it is the IAU name, but the latter could be more acceptable per WP:COMMONNAME. Thoughts? Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I can understand that you would like to align your title with the IAU name, although this would not widely indicate the nature of the article to readers. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, and I think that tilts my preference towards "Taurus-Littrow (lunar valley)". Your decision, however. Brianboulton (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Moved to Taurus-Littrow (lunar valley). In the end, I agreed with you when viewing the issue from the average reader's perspective. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Good move. Let me know when you've made the necessary adjustments and I'll look at it again. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

killer7 FAC

As someone who commented on a previous FAC on killer7, I invite you to take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Killer7/archive3 and see if you could make any suggestions or perhaps lend support. Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• this looks like it's on the warning track of WP:CANVASS, for two reasons: first, it probably should even have been done at all. Second, there's the whole "or perhaps lend support" verbiage, which is pretty questionable.. However, if you warn folks about canvassing, they'll just stop canvassing on-wiki and move it all to IRC. You know. • Ling.Nut 21:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • If I'm not allowed to notify interested parties (for example, someone who commented extensively on a previous nomination), who can I talk to? Could you reasonably say that the article would have become worse, as a result of one more editor lending a critical eye to it? Axem Titanium (talk) 06:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't believe there have been any new sources since the last nomination, but you did bring up insert credit and Joystiq last time as possibly unreliable. I've since removed or replaced those refs. If you notice anything else (about the refs or otherwise), please point it out. I added the "and perhaps lend support" because sometimes people forget that supporting is an option. Of eight commenters on the previous FAC, only one felt moved to support. Of course, it's your prerogative to say I don't feel comfortable supporting this based on my limited expertise. However, it's always nice to translate a set of addressed comments into a support !vote. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thrud

Hi. I believe SandyGeorgia was a bit premature in closing the Thurd the Barbarian FAC. I have provided a detailed response to the sourcing queries at the FAC as discussed at User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Thrud and hope that you will agree that there is enough there to at least re-open it and continue the discussion. GDallimore (Talk) 12:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

My expertise is somewhat lacking here, and I think that it would be better, from your point of view, if you asked an editor familiar with this field to comment on the reliability of your sources. Parrot of Doom might be worth approaching. Also, Ealdgyth is very experienced in assessing sources reliability, and I am sure she will take a look if you ask her. Brianboulton (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. Sandy suggest Eald, too. I'll drop her a line once I've given Sandy a chance to look at my message. GDallimore (Talk) 17:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Page move

I moved it back to Cosmo Gordon Lang and move protected it indefintely. Thanks for the heads up. I hope to review Orfeo in the next 24 hours. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the move. Don't worry if you can't get to Orfeo, it has been quite generously reviewed. You can always weigh in at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Taurus-Littrow (lunar valley)

I've fixed the bulk of the issues brought up in your peer review (thanks again, by the way). If you could, please take a look again and see what you think. Please do not hesitate to let me know about any remaining issues, I'd like to see if I can make a GA out of this one. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I will look at it shortly; I'm a bit tied up at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page. Although the peer review is closed, I invite you to provide feedback on any further improvements, I'd like to see if I can turn it into a GA. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the PR to the new name of the article. The link to it can now be found on the article's TP. Please let me know of any changes you think necessary before a GAN. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

L'Orfeo

Contributing to that FA page was an easy job. An obvious FA if ever I saw one. Meanwhile I have put William Walton up for peer review if you're inclined... – Tim riley (talk) 08:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• I will look forward to doing that, if not today then tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Brian, thanks for your complement re Opera Today :-). They don't "hire" anyone. The reviewers work for free, poor things, and don't even get free tickets. I declined the invitation but suggested someone else to them, who's still reviewing for them. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Congratulatiosn on a well deserved star for L'Orfeo! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Congrats also!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Congrats Brian! Hope to see more opera related FAs from you in the future. Maybe a Mozart opera next? :-)4meter4 (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all of the above. In answer to 4meter4, my next opera article (after a short break while I do other things) is likely to be Gianni Schicchi. I have also agreed to help out on Nixon in China in the new year. No immediate plans for a Mozart opera, but it's a tempter for some time in the future. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful! I'll be happy to help out in any way I can with those. If you do decide to tackle Mozart at some point, my personal preference/request would be for either The Marriage of Figaro or Don Giovanni given their popularity (and also being two of my personal favs). :-)4meter4 (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Guess what's my personal fav? Gianni Schicchi. Very pleased! - Could you also have a look at Verdi's greatest opera? I don't like the tags. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Starting to get refs together for this one. I leave for California on Saturday and will be back November 1, perhaps sometime between then and December 14, when I leave on year-end break (looks like France).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that looks plausible. I am going through a slow period at the moment, mainly for off-wiki reasons; Talbot Baines Reed should be on peer review by now but isn't finished and I'm behind on my Waugh reading and my reviewing work. And I'm going to Paris next week...Possibly I'll do Schicchi before Waugh if I get too bogged down, my schedule is always flexible. When both are done I intend to take a break, too. Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I know the feeling ... after that burst, I am having trouble writing, with several projects pending. I'm just being patient with myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Political Cesspool

Hi Brian, I didn't get a chance to respond to your point about this. The thing about Nick Griffin is that he holds an elected position in the UK, which is why the BBC was obliged to give him airtime. This talk show and the person who runs it, James Edwards (radio host), have very little notability. I wouldn't object to having David Duke on the main page (I would prefer not, but wouldn't oppose it if the article were high quality), because he has clear notability. My objection is that we risked taking a tiny group of nobodies and catapulting them to a notability they wouldn't have achieved otherwise. Bad enough that they were linked on the main page in DYK twice in 2009. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In spirit I agree with you, and certainly the Griffin analogy isn't exact. My main point was that the so-called "oxygen of publicity" doesn't always work in favour of the exposee. That is why I left a "comment" rather than a "strong oppose" which would be my natural inclination. Brianboulton (talk) 07:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, you may be right. The three-year-old is back, by the way. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Disused Stations

Hi Brian I have just finished writing a page and I was wondering if you could read it and say what you think and how it can be improved. The page is Whitmore railway station —Preceding unsigned comment added by OwenHurcs (talk • contribs) 20:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Number 1's

Hi there. I fixed the issues you mentioned in the FAC. Thank you! --CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. If I fixed all your iissues at the nomination page can you scratch out fixed issues? Thanks :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Brianboulton. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Peer review/Gregory House/archive4.
Message added 20:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

List of extreme weather records in Pakistan

My main concern is how can i re-write the the lead paragraph ? and in place of repeated lines what i write there ? And also can i place the particular note at the end of its respective table to which it belong ? It will make it easier for the reader to navigate.

And i didn't got your point here: "It might make sense if these notes appeared immediately after the tables to which they relate, rather than way down here."

"The map needs a more informative caption" Is it correct ? "A NASA satellite image of Pakistan showing flood situation of the river Indus during the worst 2010 Pakistan floods"

I will make a separate column for references, and notes. This would be done, while i will make the notes more precise and comprehensive that will cover everything.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Am I right in assuming that English is not your first language/ If that is so, I'll try and help you to reconstruct the lead, but you'll have to be patient for a few days, as I am very busy at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are right English is not my first language, so please assist me to reconstruct the lead paragraph. Ok i will wait for few days, as you are busy right now.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The lead is nicely written and it can well replace the current lead content. On the other side the two sections which you have suggested to remove, i think that these two events, which are the record breaking heat wave and the record breaking torrential rains are the two most important events in the history of meteorology of Pakistan, so how is it to add briefly the contents from both these sections under the main heading or something else. I am worried that if these sections are totally removed from the article, in future if i nominate this article for featured list then it might got fail due to lack of informative content, is it or not ? if there will be no such problem than i am agree to remove these two sections, as they are the repetitive of the records already listed.

Also suggest me that what more can be added in the lead section to make it a strong start of the article, and what more can be added in the article regarding the weather extremes in Pakistan.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have written the Flood section in prose as:

Pakistan has seen many floods, the most worst and destructive is the recent 2010 Pakistan floods, which swept away the 20 % of Pakistan's land, the flood is the result of unprecedented Monsson rains which lasted from 28 July to 31 July 2010. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and North eastern punjab were badly affected during the monsoon rains when dams, rivers and lakes overflowed killing at least 1600 people and affecting more than 20 million people exceeding the combined total of individuals affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the 2005 Kashmir earthquake and the 2010 Haiti earthquake. The flood is considered as worst in Pakistan's history affecting people of all four provinces and Gilgit Baltistan and Azad Kashmir region of Pakistan.

The other floods which caused destruction in the history of pakistan, includes the flood of 1950, which killed 2910 people, in 1977 On 1 July heavy rains and flooding in Karachi, killed 248 people, according to Pakistan meteorological department 207 millimetres (8.1 in) of rain fell in 24 hours. In 1992 flooding during Monsoon season killed 1,834 people across the country, in 1993 flooding during Monsoon rains killed 3,084 people, in 2003 Sindh province was badly affected due to monsoon rains causing damages in billions, killed 178 people, while in 2007 Cyclone Yemyin submerged lower part of Balochistan Province in sea water killing 380 people. Before that it killed 213 people in Karachi on its way to Balochistan.

What are your suggestions in the above written prose of flood.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit

Hi there Brian. I was wondering if I could ask you a small favor. There is an article thats is in fairly good shape that I would like to take to FA level. Its almost there, but I feel it might have some copy-edit issues that would require a "third person" viewpoint. I've noticed you'r an awesome writer and have a load of FA article accomplishments, so that's why I came to you. So you can judge on if its within your time restraints, this is the article. Do you think you could help me out? It really isn't that bad and it isn't a complex article, really shouldn't take long. Thanks anyways! --CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind helping, provided that you're not looking for something too quickly. I am off wiki quite a lot this week and have a stack of duties at FAC and PR which I'm struggling to keep abreast of - while trying to develop an article of my own. Can you wait a week? Brianboulton (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure a week sounds very nice! Thanks allot Brian, I guess I'll just message you back then :).--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have copyedited the lead and the first two sections; that is all I am prepared to do. I note that you are not a contributing editor to the article so I don't know how I was "helping you out"; however, I hope that the article has been helped by my efforts. There are numerous hidden notes in the text; I have sorted a few out, but someone ought to get a grip on the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger Waters

Many inprovements have been made to the article since you last reviewed it. We could use your input at the FAC discussion. — GabeMc (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

We would like your help concluding the FAC for Roger Waters. — GabeMc (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

William Walton

Emboldened by your encouragement at PR I have nominated Walton for FA. I have the honour to remain etc. - Tim riley (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Tracheal intubation

I see you are working through the references. See my FAC comments. I think there are way too many, and some aren't really "sources" but are there to attribute the seminal work or to list a historical writing. I feel those should be in a Notes section, so the reader can see what actual sources were used for the article. Also, I think sometimes a single fact is cited to multiple papers, when one would have done. Colin°^Talk 16:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a lot for your in-depth peer review of Taurus-Littrow (lunar valley), which is now a GA. Without your suggestions and constructive criticism, it wouldn't have gone this far. Thanks again, Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on your GA. I'm very happy to have been of assistance, and please contact me again if you would like me to look at or review another of your articles. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand FAC

I've nominated EFF for another FAC, and as you commented last time, I would like you to look her over again. Thanks! Buggie111 (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Tracheal intubation

Brian, I hope I haven't trod on your toes with this. I saw your request for help, and since I had already done text and image comments, I just kept going. I'm OK, on the whole, in doing decent sourcing for my own stuff, and I thought it would do me good to check someone else's work, albeit not to your high standard. You come across as too polite to shout at me, but if you think doing the review was inappropriate, or you think it was inadequate, I won't be upset to be told so. Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am delighted you stepped in. I'm having a bad week this week, unable to give more than a few minutes at a time to wiki and, frankly, I was beginning to wallow in the depths of tracheal intubation (not a nice analogy). Hence my call for help. Most of the points I had noted were picked up by you and/or Colin, and you picked up others as well. So thanks very much for your help. Brianboulton (talk) 08:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Bonanza episodes

Thanks for the suggestions of List of Bonanza episodes. I have now addessed them. —Jimknut (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Orfeo

Gracing today's front page, I see. Tomorrow, the world! Tim riley (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The L'Orfeo article is beautiful. Congrats, and well done! --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on this and your other recent triumphs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Peer review heroics

Hi Brian, thanks for the compliments. I will take a look in the next few days (not much time to spend here at the moment). Off-hand though, I am beginning to believe that Cosmo's signature has to be deleted from Commons. Apparently, UK law considers most signatures to be qualified for copyright protection. See commons:Template:PD-signature and commons:Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag#UK. Reed's and Tolkien's should be fine though. Jappalang (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Much belated response

Brian, my apologies for missing the opportunity to review The Temple at Thatch. It is quite interesting, and I'm glad to see its status as an FA now. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• No problem. Can I tempt you with Talbot Baines Reed, now at peer review? Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Of course! I will be able to hit it within the next 24 hours. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)

Hello, Brian. I noticed that you haven't replied to the peer review for a week now. Could you provide comments about the rest of the article or the edits I have provided from your original comments? Thanks. Guy546^(Talk) 04:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies: I was off-wiki for much of the last week, and have fallen behind with my obligations: will definitely revisit today. Brianboulton (talk) 07:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Santana discography

don't let santana alone, hope you don't forget him :(-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Brian, after closing review 1, GreatOrangePumpkin now wants us to participate in a review 2, where our words from the first review have already been copied (wholly inadequate though they obviously were). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done I nominated it to FL, thx afterall-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The article Robert Falcon Scott is scheduled to appear as the main page featured article in the near future

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on October 24, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 24, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 19:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Robert Falcon Scott in 1912

Robert Falcon Scott (1868–1912) was a Royal Navy officer and explorer who led two expeditions to the Antarctic regions: the Discovery Expedition, 1901–04, and the ill-fated Terra Nova Expedition, 1910–13. During this second venture, Scott led a party of five which reached the South Pole on 17 January 1912, only to find that they had been preceded by Roald Amundsen's Norwegian expedition. On their return journey, Scott and his four comrades all perished from a combination of exhaustion, starvation and extreme cold. Following the news of his death, Scott became an iconic British hero, a status maintained for more than 50 years and reflected by the many permanent memorials erected across the nation. In the closing decades of the 20th century, however, in a more sceptical age, the legend was reassessed as attention focused on the causes of the disaster and the extent of Scott's personal culpability. From a previously unassailable position, Scott became a figure of controversy, with questions raised about his competence and character. Commentators in the 21st century have on the whole regarded Scott more positively, emphasising his personal bravery and stoicism while acknowledging his errors, but ascribing his expedition's fate primarily to misfortune. (more...)

• I will be glad to update the backlog and already watch the Scott article. Will keep an extra eye on it when it is TFA. I know you like my covered bridge articles, and so you will probably be glad to know I am working on getting two more to FAC, and one other to at least GAN. I will look at TBR, though it may take me a few days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Excellent news on the bridges; I will look out for them at PR. There is no hurry on TBR as I won't be doing anything with it until after I get back from Paris next Tuesday. Other reviewers have had a go and the article looks in fairly good shape, though perhaps needs one more fresh eye over the prose. Brianboulton (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I will be watching it too. Congrats and enjoy France. Dincher (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back - I assume you will go over the Scott article carefully - there were a number of changes I did not revert, but which I thought you might. Unfortuantely as of the update last night, the PR backlog looked set to grow by 5 or 6 more tonight. I will keep chipping away at it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)