Jump to content

User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 53

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55→Archive 60

FAC source reviews...

I did three .. I left you Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paul McCartney/archive2. I'm so kind. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

Gabriel and Alec

I've put Gabriel Fauré up for FAC if you care to look in. And, er, I've got a Tory prime minister up for peer review. But not that Tory prime minister! This is her decent (and quietly interesting) predecessor, Alec Douglas-Home, on whom I'd welcome your comments. Tim riley (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll certainly give some attention to Fauré. If you look on the FAC talkpage you will read my whinge about the current shortage of reviewers at FAC; things have improved a bit since I bleated, but maybe you would be prepared to give one of the more neglected darlings an encouraging (or even discouraging) word? As to Vass, that's a bit of a surprise; I certainly owe you a review or two , though it may take me a few days to look at it. Brianboulton (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks muchly for pointing out that I'd neglected to add Fauré to the FAC page. Going ga-ga, you know. Now added. Tim riley (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam

Along with several hundred others I was granted a free Highbeam account some weeks ago. However, my attempts to use it have been, to date, somewhat problematic; I'd welcome a bit of advice from other users:-

  • Are the resources time-limited, i.e do they cover reports and articles from all eras or only from more recent decades?
  • Do they cover print sources worldwide, or mainly from US?
  • Most importantly, what's the most efficient method of searching or navigating? If for example I wanted to look for reviews of Royal Opera performances of La Boheme in the 1970s, what would be the best way of starting?

Any comments welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Will look tomorrow or soonish, if no one else answers. Found halfway decent stuff on William Carlos Williams a while back. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Like most such resources that I've seen, the articles seem to start in the early 1980s, unfortunately. I, too, was hoping to go at least a decade or more further back than that. I have found mostly U.S. sources, but then again, I research mostly U.S. topics, so that's no big surprise. The search/navigation features are not nearly as refined as, say, Newsbank, which I have through my local library, but you can search a specific date range at least. You can also search by publication if you know the name of the publication. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

FAC reviewing

In re your comment, above, I look in from time to time at articles on which I am vain enough to think my opinion might be worth something, but I haven't so far systematically waded in. You, I see, are taking on more and more source and even image reviewing. I am more than happy to help out with the former, but no power, human or divine, would induce me to engage in the latter. As to general FA reviewing, I read through Ra.One this morning, all 219,106 bytes of it, and I have no idea whether I think it of FA quality or not. It's clearly full and is impressively referenced, and the prose is all right, but as to FA criterion 1(d) (neutrality) how does one judge? And does an article of 219,106 bytes match criterion 4? I just mention this as an example of why I hesitate to do more at FAC. Tim riley (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think reading through the Ra.One article was well beyond the call of duty, given its length; I have left a comment on this aspect on the FAC page. I've no doubt you do more than your share of FAC/PR reviewing, and you have certainly never hesitated to look at anything I've put your way. I've always been prepared to help out with source reviewing, though I only dabble in image reviews because with the retirements or withdrawals of so many key figures in the last year, there's hardly anyone left doing it. Also I get a bit edgy when comments on the FAC page appear to dry up; lack of reviewer attention can be very demoralising. Brianboulton (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Query

Regarding Ra.One, is it alright if I remove all references from a section if the information is referenced in the separate article? I want to remove the references from the VFX and Filming sections so as to help reduce the article size. Thanks. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think each article stands alone, and its content needs to be referenced specifically, rather than in an associated article. The best way to reduce the article size is to trim the prose. Brianboulton (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am trimming the prose (quite a lot) by making the individual articles. I am now planning another split regarding the film's economics. Other than that, I guess we can trim the critical reception section a bit. I aim to bring down the article size to near 150,000 bytes. Will that be a size worthy of an FA? All sections split into articles will feature all-encompassing summaries of the content. You can check the article now; I have removed three filming-based sub-sections and replaced it with one, and I am currently in the process of devising a summary for the entire Marketing section (which has been removed from the article). Thanks. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I see the wordcount is down to 11500, which looks a lot better (I tend to use wordcount rather than no. of kB as the measure of length since it is the words that are read). I won't get a chance before tomorrow to look at the article in any detail but you are assuredly moving in the right direction. Brianboulton (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the encouragement :). I haven't yet put up the summary of Marketing, but come to think of it, if I collapse the entire Economics and Comm Analysis sections into one, then the word count will dip even further. Hope the article reaches there soon. Cheers. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Btw what software do you use to measure an article's wordcount? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
See the toolbox on the left, the first item of which is "What links here". A "page size" counter may be included in this box. If it isn't, well I'm sorry to say I forget now how I got this tool, but I daresay that one or other of the friendly admins (contra Malleus, they do exist) who watch this talkpage may be able to assist you in downloading it. It is a very useful means of disciplining oneself, I find. Brianboulton (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
See User:Dr pda/prosesize - your (hopefully friendly) admin friend, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Friendly & ever-helpful; That should do the trick. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys! :) ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 04:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Szabo article

Hello again. Some time ago, you were kind enough to take a look at the article on Istvan Szabo and give me some feedback. I believe I've addressed all your suggestions, and was wondering if you'd be willing to take another look now.Hirschjoshua (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

There have been some obvious improvements in the article since my review comments of six months ago, but there is still a problem with citation formatting. I have reformatted the first citation, to give you an example of what needs to be done generally. It might help you if you looked at the citation styles of a few featured articles, to become more familiar with requirements. Also, useful pages such as WP:CITE and WP:Citation templates might be helpful. Personally I always use citation templates which, if used correctly. will guarantee correct citation formats, though I know some editors find them constricting. Brianboulton (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll take care of it.Hirschjoshua (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, if I may inquire further, I'm confused about something. WP:CITE says one may use any of the common citation styles, including MLA, as long as one uses it consistently through the article. I used MLA consistently through the article, so I'm curious why feature articles are formatted differently.Hirschjoshua (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Kathleen Ferrier image

Please forgive my much belated response; do you still require my input on your query? Эlcobbola talk 16:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and I hope you are well. Regarding the Ferrier image, it is merely a question of whether File:Kathleen Ferrier.jpg is free of copyright in the US, and should therefore be used in place of the current non-free lead image. As stated, I am dubious about it but, although I know more than I did, I still can't be sure, which is why I sought your advice. From a viewpoint of personal preference I would much rather retain the current image.

While I have your attention I wonder if you could briefly give an opinion on whether the following are free, and whether their present licencing details are correct? They are relevant to a current article project.

Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Kathleen Ferrier.jpg is likely free of copyright in the US by virtue of publication abroad between 1923 and 1977 without compliance with US formalities - likely because I am unsure whether the source clip is the entirety of the work (although the clip itself does not have the required notice, it may be part of a longer work, which may or may not have had the required notice). This is a somewhat moot point, however, as OpenBeelden (the source) is a project of Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision, which seems a reliable source. If they claim the clip is CC-by-SA, that's good enough for Wikipedia (verifiability over truth).
The Kristallnacht images are not adequately supported. Sources are links to the files themselves, not to pages containing date/authorship information. Further, there is a tremendous difference between a genuinely anonymous (i.e., not known to anyone) photo and a website merely failing to indicate an author (i.e., not known to the uploader/wikipedians). The former is required to use the {{anonymous-EU}} license, and an actual source is needed to make that determination. Эlcobbola talk 19:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

D'Oliveira

Reading up on our only first-class Prime Minister, I noticed you had commented on the peer review about the D'Oliveria affair and Douglas-Home's role in it. To cut a long story short, I've stumbled in a roundabout way across some information about Arthur Gilligan, the charming (!) former England captain and part-time fascist. I'm probably going to add him to my to-do list as just about every source on him, not just our article, seems to have the wrong information, but I wondered if the D'Olly book mentions much about him. He seems to have "reformed" after the 1930s and was no longer a fascist (openly, at least) but I wondered if any of this was mentioned as a factor in 1968? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Oborne does not believe that Gilligan had any real influence in the decision not to select D'Oliveira. He has this to say about the critical selectors' meeting on 27 August 1968: "A second MCC selector in the room, technically senior but in practice carrying much less weight than Allen, was the MCC president, A.E.R. Gilligan. Gilligan was a former England cricket captain and a one-time member of the British Union of Fascists. Recently released government records show that the Australian secret service took a close interest in Arthur Gilligan when he captained the England touring party to Australia in 1924. Mussolini's March on Rome had taken place two years earlier. On his return from the tour Gilligan wrote an article for The Bulletin of the British Fascists entitled "The Spirit of Fascism and Cricket Tours". (Oborne, page 194) Readers are then referred to Chris Harte: A History of Australian Cricket, pp. 290–95, and Mike Marqusee: Anyone but England: Cricket and the National Malaise, pp. 188–89. So there may be something worth digging for. My personal view is that most of the people significant in English cricket in the past 100 years have been more or less Fascists, just less open about it than Gilligan. I would absolve Sheppard of course, but he never held MCC office. Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for this, very helpful. A quick check shows that the sections from the Harte book relate entirely to an article on the 1924-25 tour which covers its "fascist" aspects (apparently Frederick Toone was also a fascist) which I've managed to get a copy of. I'll see if I can find a copy of the Marquesse book. It's interesting to note that the Oborne book is actually wrong on one point: Gilligan was not a member of the British Union of Fascists but a different organisation called the British Fascists. This seems to be a common error; one internet site (not too reliable, but still...) confidently calls Gilligan the deputy to Oswald Mosely! I'm inclined to agree on your opinion on the powers-that-be; CB Fry was quite an admirer of Hitler for a time (ironic, given his friendship with Ranji)! One other I may add to the free-from-blame group would be E. W. Swanton. I'm far from a fan of his on many levels, but he was apparently a vocal opponent of South Africa when everyone else was following the party line before 1970. Well, more than most of the MCC crowd, anyway. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Tippett

Done. And I'll see your Jan 75 RFH concert and raise you Solti and the LPO in Elgar 2 a week or so later. Revelatory. Tim riley (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You win, if you were sitting two rows behind Elgar. Otherwise it's GS & M to me. Brianboulton (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
OK (pistols at dawn, Ssilvers and Guillaume Tell as seconds if they're free) TR and partner in upper box on red side on your birthday in 1976 looking down on Sir William Walton, Previn conducting Belshazzar's Feast. Deuce! Tim riley (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

Australian Christian Lobby

Hi there. In November 2011 you left "some neutral observations" on the talk page of the ACL after taking it out of the WP peer review process. Your comments were helpful however once again we are facing what I think is a growing problem. You see there are only two main editors of this article, myself (vehemently opposed to the ACL) and another editor who is strongly in favour of them. The editor in favour of the ACL pretty much collects every favourably thing that is ever said about the ACL and adds it to the article and in the interest of making the article unbiased I counter his efforts by doing the exact opposite. I've been monitoring the article for much longer than he has and have only started mass adding criticism in response to his efforts. This has resulted in the article reaching mammoth proportions, with no end in site. I have in the past reached an agreement with the other editor to mutually shorten our arguments, but my efforts to stop the article growing to such a massive size are clearly not good enough. I understand asking you for help is a bit of a pain, so if you don't have the time to write some more suggestions n the talk page could you just let me know where I should take an issue like this to? Considering WP peer review is apparently not the appropriate place to do so. Any comments you have on the subject would be helpful. Thanks a lot. Freikorp(talk) 15:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I will look at the article again in the next couple of days or so. The current wordcount is about 4100 which I would not describe as "mammoth proportions". I will give a more considered view when I've read it again. Brianboulton (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Feel free to make any changes to the article yourself of course instead of just giving us instructions if that is more convenient for you. It's not the overall length or word count of the article that's bothering me, it's what the article is made up of that is. It's turning into a comprehensive account of everything the ACL has ever done. Imagine if we used the same style of writing (listed everything anyone had ever written about them) for a major political parties article. Freikorp (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think I will have time to edit the article. I will be interested, however, to see whether it breaches the clear requirements of WP:PROMOTION, in particular the section headed: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion". Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be a nuisance but just following this up. I understand you are busy; no hard feelings if you don't have the time. I won't bring the subject up again in any case. Freikorp (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ezra Pound

Hi Brian, I have an unexpected chunk of time free - a sudden change of schedule - so I thought I might put it to use for Ezra. Shall I re-open the PR, or would you like to leave comments on the article talk page? Thanks by the way for taking this on; it's a large page. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I would open a new PR, as that provides a more formal structure for an indepth review. It is a large page, but then the subject is large, and worth spending time on (not that I have any personal liking for the old brute). I will probably need to do the review in a few instalments, as I have a few other irons burning at present. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'm still juggling schedules that seem to be changing each hour, so I'll decide in the next day or so whether this is good time, or whether to put it off. None of us is terribly fond of the old brute and the page has been in fairly decent shape for over a year, so there's no rush. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

A Child of Our Time images

Deep River, my home is over Jordan...

The images all seem fine to me in terms of licenses. I note that File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1970-041-46, Berlin, Synagoge Fasanenstraße.jpg is of a burnt out synagogue and is also a Bundesarchive photo (so it is presumably also a free image) and so may be worth including. There is some dispute as to whether it was a synagogue in Berlin (as titled) or Munich.

Is there any chance of a fair use sound clip? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the images. I did consider the burnt-out synagogue photo, but its resolution is rather poor. Also, bearing in mind that Tippett wanted the oratorio to speak for the oppressed generally, it may be thought unnecessary to add another holocaust-related image. I did consider including an image of a lynching; the words of the oratorio refer to "pogroms in the east, lynching in the west" - and there are plenty of gruesome pictures to choose from (e.g. from here). But they may be thought simply sensational, which is not the effect I'm aiming for.
On sound clips, I am in general opposed to the inclusion of 30-second bites of music from works like operas and oratorios, as such short clips can rarely represent the true flavour of a complex and multifaceted work. There is an apparently licenced soundfile of the spiritual "Go Down, Moses" (File:01 - Go down Moses (Negro Spiritual).ogg) but it sounds nothing like the oratorio's version and doesn't use the same text, so is quite unsuitable. Brianboulton (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that images that are too gruesome may distract from the article for many readers, and am fine on not having a sound clip. I read most of the article and thought it quite well done (as usual). Let me know when it is at PR. I found a free image (published 1917) of sheet music of an arrangement of Deep River here. The words are the traditional ones, and it looks pretty close to the traditional melody too (no idea on how the harmonization matches with the oratorio). Not sure if this is something you'd want to include or not. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I assume you mean notify you when it reaches FAC (it's at PR now, and at least until Monday). The sheet music is nice; the Deep River melody is as per the oratorio, though there it is sung by a SATB ensemble and chorus, with complex harmonisations. Still, it might make a useful illustration in the Music section. I can greatly recommend the work to you, if you have not heard it before. Brianboulton (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Later: the Deep River music page does not upload well; it has markings across it which, I presume, are there to thwart attempt to upload it to other sites. Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I was able to upload a version without markings - if you like it, I can crop it to remove the dark border at left and at bottom. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it looks good - better if the borders were trimmed off. Do you mind doing this? Brianboulton (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Glad you like it. I have now cropped it and added it to the article on the song itself. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on your latest FA! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sir Home

I have Sir Alec up for FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alec Douglas-Home/archive1) should you care to look in and comment. Tim riley (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC) (PS In re his spat with Macleod could I entitle the section "Home and Colonial" (or are you too young to remember the Home and Colonial Stores of my youth?) Tim riley (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Home and Colonial is good! I do vaguely remember that High Street name, particularly as Betjeman wrote a poem immortalising it ("Myfanwy"), though I can't remember ever shopping there. Maybe the Boultons had home deliveries. Anyhow, I'll give Alec another lookover (I hope that he is not to be the first in a line of featured Tory prime ministers, though). Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I might do the Grocer at some point, but I consider myself obliged (as a former public servant) to give a Labour or Liberal/Lib Dem luminary a going over first in the interest of balance. I feel Roy Jenkins hovering. There is a temptation to provoke you to frenzy by writing about la vache Thatcher, but in truth it would revolt me even more than it would you. Tim riley (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

New peer review

I have finished and trembling laid at the altar of peer review Avery Brundage, of whom you perhaps have heard. I recall you termed Landis formidable, but he was a wuss, as they say a bit further south than me, compared with Brundage. Not my first subject who went to Munich and didn't come off too well, I fear. I do remember his speech, I think it is my earliest Olympic memory, at least, I can't remember anything else from 1972. It's a bit of an epic, be warned. link. No particular hurry.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a contest going on among some editors, to find the nastiest piece of work as the subject for an article. I am (on and off) reviewing Ezra Pound; I have just started detailed research on Cosima Wagner; now you are doing Brundage (yes, I remember that speech very well). No matter, I will fit him in, though perhaps not terribly swiftly as I have a few rather crowded (off-wiki) days coming up. Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
As I've been to Bayreuth and Pound went to my university, I am forced to vote for Avery.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Also for peer review: the Precious article, not as epic ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The university where I briefly taught in the early 90s includes Pound as a "former faculty member", on the basis of a few stand-in evening classes he took in Jan-Feb 1909, long before the place became a university; thus do people attach themselves to fame, however notorious. As to the Yogo article, the first line reads: "Yogo sapphires are a variety of corundum..." In my haste, and with the wrong glasses on, I read this as "Yogo sapphires are a variety of condom..." Which would make most interesting reading. Brianboulton (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Terra Nova Expedition && "Huxley"

Hi, Brian. On Terra Nova Expedition, there are a fistful of ambiguous refs; some of the "Huxley" refs could be either of the two Huxleys and some of the Leonard Huxley ones are missing the volume number. I asked about this once before but it seems to have drifted off. I'll sort the mechanics of the {sfn}/{sfnRef}. Thinking I'll review the article for tweaks anyway, as I've refined my approach a bit since then. Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Huxleys do need sorting out. Refs 6 and 8 are Elspeth, incidentally. I don't have time at the moment to see to this, but if you can do it while generally buffing the article up, that would be great. The article was my second FA, when I was pretty green and standards were a lot more lax. I did some improving before it was TFA a couple of years ago, but many hands have been at it since then. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I can fix that right up. Off... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

A Child of Our Time ISBN

The ISBN for Bowen, Meiron (1982). Michael Tippett is invalid. I looked in a few of the usual places and didn't find it. I also tweaked a few things. Best, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it is 0-86051-137-5. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, seems much better (librarians are good at finding this stuff;). Terima kasih. It's in the article, now. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Peter Heywood

This is a note to let the main editors of Peter Heywood know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 6, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 6, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Peter Heywood

Peter Heywood (1772–1831) was a British naval officer who was aboard HMS Bounty during the mutiny of 28 April 1789. Bounty had left England in 1787 on a mission to collect breadfruit from the Pacific. Shortly after the ship began its homeward voyage, discontented crew members led by Fletcher Christian seized its captain, William Bligh, and took control of the vessel. Bligh and 19 loyalists were set adrift in an open boat; Heywood remained aboard Bounty. He and 15 others settled in Tahiti, while Bounty sailed on to Pitcairn Island. Bligh eventually reached England, where he implicated Heywood in the mutiny. In 1791 Heywood and his companions were captured and brought back to England. Heywood was court-martialed and sentenced to hang, but was subsequently pardoned by King George III. During his trial powerful family connections worked on his behalf, and the extent of his possible guilt was clouded by contradictory statements and possible false testimony. Heywood's career subsequently prospered; he was given his first command at the age of 27, and made a Post-Captain at 31. After leaving the navy in 1816 he enjoyed a long and peaceful retirement. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Good to see him, excellent article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Nixon in China

A question was asked here which I think you may be better able to answer than me. Hope you spent your day off enjoyably.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I was at a funeral...I will check out the Nixon thing later today when I get home. Brianboulton (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Later: this seems to be your addition of the "hang" material, on 28 March 2011. It is sourced to a LA Times article to which I have no access so I can't check the validity. But I don't imagine you would have added it without verification in the source. Brianboulton (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I had access then, but it was an article pack and it's long since expired. Sorry about the funeral and for fingering you on the article. I don't greatly care if Madame Mao hangs or not, though I hear she deserved it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Pierre Monteux

Cg2p0B0u8m and I have put the old boy up for peer review, if you have time and disposition to look in we shall be grateful. There is not the slightest urgency about this. We hope to get him up to FAC at some time in the future, but we have set no deadlines for ourselves. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Monteverdi work-title mess

Brian, I have a recording entitled, cryptically, 13a Magnificat a 7. It blows my socks off. But on trying to locate information about it, and possibly the score, User:Graham87 and I have discovered what a tangled mess his output is in, in terms of cataloguing. The SV system appears to be, well, not at a mature stage, with another "edition" due 2013. Our article on SV is just a stub, but refers here:

There are Magnificats in 4 and 6 voices, neither of which appear to match the recording, which is of 17 mins' duration.

CPDL.org

Any pointers? Should WP have a better organisational system? Tony (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The "Magnificat a 7" is used as the final part of the Vespro Della Beata Vergine and is generally referenced as "13a". Monteverdi also wrote a slightly longer six-voice variant, known as "13b", for six voices. My recording of the Vespers (Archiv 429-565-2, J.E. Gardiner) includes both versions: 13a lasts for 17'38, 13b for 18'27. As to the Magnificat score, I think you'll find it downloadable from here, via the pdf link. I haven't tried this, as I fear I would still be waiting next Thursday. I imagine, anyway, that scores of the Vespers are freely available from music libraries.
As to the question of Monteverdi cataloguing, to put it bluntly, SV is somewhat of a nightmare. 11 stage works have SV numbers, but these are far from representing the chronology; for example L'Orfeo, written in 1607, is SV318, while Il combattimento di Tancredi e Clorinda (1625) is SV153 and L'incoronazione (1643) is SV308. The WP article for the Vespers gives the SV as 206. I was unable to reach Herr Stattkus's site via the pdf link. If I were a younger man it might be worth the wait.
I hope the above is of some use. While dealing with this I gave myself the treat of listening to the Magnificat again. Wow! Brianboulton (talk) 10:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I've listened to it three times today! Thanks for this information. If WP wasn't against OR, we could come up with a better cataloguing system, which would make it easier for both editors and readers to locate the information they're searching for. Tony (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Maybe a decent List of compositions by Monteverdi WP article would be a help; the list embedded in the (somewhat inadequate) Claudio Monteverdi is unsatisfactory. I'm unlikely to find time for this work at present, but maybe next year? Brianboulton (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Edmund Sharpe

Brian. You may have noticed that this eventually made it as a FA. Very many thanks for your part in it - the peer review and your support. Best wishes in all your future endeavours. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations. Promotion was a long time coming, but was well deserved. I'll be happy to review your future work if you give me a buzz. Brianboulton (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Peer review

I hope you are not busy, because I will need a lot of help from you now :D. After two failed FACs, I want to pull out all stops for Ra.One so that ti assuredly passes in its third time. Hence, I opened a peer review for it here, and I request that you take part in it since Cryptic C62 has decided to withdraw from reviewing. I'd be much obliged if you will give a thorough, FAC-level peer review so that any possible flaws can be pointed out. Thanks :). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Regrettably, I am particularly busy at present, and also have a number of non-wiki issues which are limiting the time I can spend here. And science fiction superhero films are not at all my areas of expertise. I can't promise anything, but I think your efforts in respect of this article deserve a degree of support, so if you can be patient for a while - several days at least - I will try and make a few helpful suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Your views would be much appreciated, whatever time they come. In the meanwhile, I may ask some other editors to do a detailed review too. I hope you don't mind. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55→Archive 60
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brianboulton/Archive_53&oldid=1083573714"