User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 42

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hungarian Revolution of 1956/archive1‎

Since you were instrumental in the "high-quality" RS change, this may be an interesting test case. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sound files

I'm jealous!

Ok. What'd I Say Parts I & II is 6.30 minutes. I would like the first 30 seconds of the song: the opening electric piano and the percussion pick up, fading at the end of the 30 seconds.

The second file I want further into the song to illustrate the shout-outs and the ribald calls that have become so iconic. They start (on my iPod at least) at 4.32, but they ratchet up in intensity at 5.02 and again at 5.26. Maybe a 30-second span between 5.02 and 5.32 fading out at the end. Let me know if you have questions, and I very much appreciate the effort! --Moni3 (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Emailed you. Awadewit (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Images

Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Anne Bronte

Thank you for your GA review of the Anne Bronte article. As I was not the main editor of the article's content I was unaware of the plagiarism until your review had started. I made several web searches using chunks of text and realised that there were too many "similarities" to be coincidence, even taking into account some quotes.

Your review will be most helpful in putting matters right. This may not happen swiftly as I will have to source the biographical and critical works to which you refer.--Harkey (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that the review was helpful. Let me know if I can help in obtaining sources - I have access to lots of databases! :) Awadewit (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Philip Larkin

Hello! I don't believe we've met on WP though I've seen your name here and there lots, most recently doing the GA on whichever Bronte sister it was. Someone has suggested that the Philip Larkin talk page that it might be a worthwhile FA candidate. May I ask you to cast your experienced eye over the article and express an opinion on whether that is the case or not? Yours, almost-instinct 18:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm commented at Talk:Philip Larkin. Awadewit (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments there. As you can see there are people who are interested in helping PL become an FA, but, as evinced by the way the talk page went quiet again, there's a total lack of leadership. I'm most unkeen to take it through FA because I'm horribly emotionally attached to the work I've done there, and don't want to be accused of ownership issues (the truth hurts!). I'm hoping that some shining knight will come along and take us under our wing; it seems to me that sooner or later someone will take the article through FA, and I'd rather it was someone pleasant and calm and temperate and understanding etc etc. I suppose I'm wondering if you would be interested? As far as I'm aware there will be very little controversy about the contents; the standard, official biography on him is very thorough and we used it (and another good book) carefully. Yours, almost-instinct 16:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I've laid out a plan. Awadewit (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
:-) almost-instinct 10:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
As you'll be able to see, we've starting taking a stroll through the main body of the text preparing it for the harsher gaze of less-involved eyes. Do tell when you think the plan needs moving onto the next stage. almost-instinct 18:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Just in time for your "in a week's time" I think we've finished the sprucing up and the page should now be ready for Peer Review. Over to you! almost-instinct 18:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Gray's Inn

Thanks for the looksee; I've replied to your point on the talkpage. Any anti-female bias in sources from 1850-1920 shouldn't be a problem considering they didn't admit women until after that point anyway. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would assume it would be an important bias since they wouldn't consider women an important presence in the law and that was one reason that they kept them out of it. Awadewit (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
No, the problem with admitting women as barristers was due to the awarding schemes of Oxford and Cambridge. Ivy Williams, for example, was called to the bar as soon as physically possible after the degree awarding schemes were changed (changes took place in 1920, call took place in 1921) so it wasn't Inn-related. In any case, my point was that because women weren't admitted until after the sources were written, there is no coverage of women. This isn't a deficiency, because there wouldn't be anything to say about female barristers anyway. In any case I (hope) I've addressed the query about the academic acceptance of the sources at Talk:Gray's Inn. Ironholds (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

ketogenic diet

Awadewit,

I've put ketogenic diet up for peer review in order to push it towards FAC. I'm sure it is some way away from brilliant and engaging prose. I suspect you are probably far too busy to spend the necessary time copyediting this (though if you could read it and offer some opinions that would be great). Could you recommend someone who you think would be able to spare the time and who has the talent to make the article shine? Any lurkers care to volunteer? Cheers, Colin°Talk 17:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend: Brianboulton, Markus Poessel, Roger Davies, Scartol, and Moni3. I'll try to look at it myself as well! Awadewit (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I'll contact someone from your copyeditor posse later today. Colin°Talk 12:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Monck-ey business

Hi, I noticed at WP:FAC that you had done a few image reviews. I hope that with this skill you might be able to answer what I hope is a quick query. I'm doing a GA review and I came across File:George Monck 1st Duke of Albemarle Studio of Lely.jpg. The description of the copyright is ambiguous to say the least. Do you know if it passes muster or not? Amy assistance gratefully received. Ben MacDui 19:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As of right now it passes, because from what I heard the lawsuit was dropped or settled. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing ambiguous about the copyright. The artist has clearly been dead for over 70 years. (Btw, we don't cave into threats of lawsuits. If a lawsuit is filed with a court injunction regarding the images or is settled with a decision, then obviously we would follow it, but we don't start removing images on the mere threat.) Awadewit (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. Ben MacDui 07:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Historian

How is the disc? Would you like the peer review to resume? Brianboulton (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Now is a good time, yes. Thanks so much! Awadewit (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I have to go away tomorrow for a few days, and will have limited online access, so if my comments are slow in coming, that's the reason. I will e on to it, though. Brianboulton (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

A point of interest

William Blake, Henry Fuseli, William Hayley and others referred to Thomas Paine as the "demogorgon" over the treatment and accusations lodged against him by the British government. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool word. Awadewit (talk) 05:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I forgot to mention - William Godwin used the term too, and his son in law may have picked it up sometime, which is ignored in any current article or biography. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Attachment theory

Oh don't worry. I've almost stopped crying and slashing my wrists now. It fell off the bottom of the page. Only one reviewer had actually finished! SG suggested I get the reviewers to complete their reviews on the article talkpage quite quickly and then stick it up again. I'd love you to complete your review. Fainites barleyscribs 08:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Will do - it will be slow, though. Awadewit (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks back

For the juicy star on the bottom of my talk page. Wish I could do more at FAC, but real life responsibilities are going to preclude that for at least the next several days. I'll be lucky to find time to maintain my regular reviewing schedule. Every little bit helps, though. That's why I do this. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Real life? What's that? Awadewit (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

History of Sesame Street

Hi, I've finally been able to address all your concerns with this image review. Could you please take a look and see if I've addressed them adequately. Thanks! --Christine (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Done - we're so close! Awadewit (talk) 05:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
And I think we're there now. I'm waiting for some materials to arrive in the mail before I can tackle the other couple of issues that are left. Thanks again for everything. --Christine (talk) 11:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Randolph Caldecott

Hi, I've left a note about the Caldecott restoration at the WikiCup talk. If you'd like to weigh in, feel free. Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup#Randolph_Caldecott Durova331 02:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

Could you please look at the sourcing in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mandell Creighton/archive1 on the British Historian Mandell Creighton. I have some concerns. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see that you're very busy ...

You were kind enough to give me some sound advice when I submitted The Green Child at DYK earlier this year. I've done quite a bit of work on it on and off since then, but I'm starting to hit the buffers. I don't have the resources or the background to take this any further than GA, but I'd like to do that before I move on. I can see that the idea of the "crystalline structure of the universe" needs a bit more development, along with the theme of Plato's philosophy, which I'll work on.

Could I possibly impose on you to take another quick look through and tell me honestly what you think? Am I wasting my time? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to look at it - I'll get to it by Friday at the latest. Awadewit (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Much appreciated. This has been very much a labour of love for me, but I don't really know what I'm doing with literature articles; I feel much more confident with a riot or a witch trial. I came across the book over 30 years ago now, and it bowled me over. One sentence in particular has stuck in my mind ever since: "... words and things grow together in the mind, grow like a skin over the tender images of things until words and things cannot be separated". --Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
That is a beautiful quote. I've been sharing it with people. :) Awadewit (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Done! Awadewit (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
That was very helpful, thanks ever so much. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's like a baffling Where's Waldo? !

[1] See if you can find Thomas Payne. --Moni3 (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you believe I've seen that stupendous piece of art before?! Awadewit (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I had not! Who knew someone could take Thomas Kinkade and make it worse??? I could not. Like variations on a Precious Moments figurine. --Moni3 (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hassett/Fifth Test

Replied about the image YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I do believe it is in the Bradman and Bat image, the second one there. Am I missing something? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Chopin Nocturnes

Hi Awadewit. Remember me? I was checking a few of the Chopin nocturnes pages I had worked on when I came across a peer review that you did on one of them. Your comments were quite on the mark to several issues I had realized after reading them recently. I had a few questions for you, however.

  • It might be worth briefly describing what a nocturne is and how each piece fits that genre. - Where would I place these comments?
  • I would place an initial "Chopin's nocturnes" or "Nocturne" section before the "Nocturne in G minor, Op. 37, No. 1" section. Awadewit (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • How much Chopin scholarship have you looked into? I would imagine that there is quite a bit on his nocturnes - perhaps entire books. I'm a little concerned that each book I looked at was available for preview on Google Books. While Google Books is a good starting point for research, when it comes to music scholarship, you are inevitably going to have to go to a library. Most material simply isn't available for free on the internet, unfortunately. - I briefly did some quick searches on my school library's site and was unable to locate any obviously good resources. You wouldn't happen to know some good books that I could use, would you?
  • I don't know much about Chopin scholarship, but if I were you, I would start with something like The Cambridge Companion to Chopin, which has a chapter on his nocturnes, and work out from there. The chapter should also have some good references you can use. You can expand out, article by article. :) Awadewit (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Both Symphony No. 3 (Górecki) and Six Moments Musicaux (Rachmaninoff) are articles that have been rated as FA and GA respectively. They, however, have differing layouts. Further, the nocturne couplets can be differentiated into separate nocturnes. Any tips on how to divide the article properly? I'm thinking that a mix between the two articles may be my best bet.
Those are very different pieces of music (even from each other). I think that including "Background" and "Reception" sections would be a good idea, though. On the other hand, you could integrate the information you would put into these sections into the appropriate nocturne sections. Either way would work, IMO. Awadewit (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Might it be more efficient to get Nocturnes (Chopin) to GA and potentially FA instead of working on each individual Nocturne article?
  • In my experience, it is easier to do the "daughter" articles and then the parent article. For example, I first wrote Mary Wollstonecraft and then all of the articles on her works. After I had written the daughter articles, I had to rewrite half of the Wollstonecraft article. However, there are so many nocturnes, you may find it easier to write the general description first. Also, of course, the Nocturnes (Chopin) article, is more important than the individual articles, so you may want to spend your time on that. Awadewit (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I had originally worked on these pages as mere DYK candidates until it was pointed out to me earlier today that length is not a requirement for GAs. I would very much like to see these articles recognized in such a manner. However, I'm on no specific timeline here, so don't rush to answer; I can see how obviously busy you are. I won't have access to my school library until Monday of next week anyway, so that is the absolute earliest that I will start working on these pages again. Knowing my laziness and rate of work, "absolute earliest" is a stretch to begin with...

  • By the way, it is very liberating to think of Wikipedia as the project without a deadline! Awadewit (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for your help! ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 04:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see you back! I don't have time at the moment, but I will respond to your questions in a day or so. Awadewit (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Gropius image question

Because I know you have buckets of free time, I wonder if you could spare a minute to look at this image of Walter Gropius. It appears to have conflicting copyright info. On the one hand, it bears this template, indicating that it is not in the public domain. But that seems based on when the image was published. On the other hand, the author (German photographer Louis Held) died in 1927, making the {{PD-old}} template a good fit.

Which one takes priority? Thanks in advance! Scartol • Tok 18:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to take some time to look into that. Awadewit (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason why PD-old wouldn't work. I've removed the other tag. Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Cheers for that; I appreciate it. I'll take a look at Larkin when I can but I have to warn you that I still owe Moni a review of Tipping the Velvet and school's kinda busy lately. (Not like usual!) But I'll put it on the list for an upcoming available time slot. Scartol • Tok 19:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Your humor

... is showing again :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Inner German border FAC

I've now responded to all of the issues that you raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inner German border/archive1#Awadewit, but I would appreciate some guidance and assistance in resolving the outstanding issues. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to the first half - I will look at the second half tonight. Awadewit (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I've now resolved all of the outstanding issues that you raised. Hopefully this might clear the path to you switching your oppose !vote to supporting. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't strike the oppose until the OTRS ticket has been obtained. Awadewit (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FAC#Makinti_Napanangka

Hi. Since you conducted the image review, and after some discussion with Eubulides and Elcobbola, a fair use image has been added, comprising a photograph of one of the artist's works. I would welcome your view. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Awadewit (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wollstonecraft

I am glad to see you back and active on WP and hope this bodes well for your life off-wiki too. Over the summer I found factual inaccuracies in the article on Mary Wollstonecraft, specifically on her legacy in the C19. We had some discussion about this on the talkpage. My last comments, including new sources I found, were left a couple of months ago, and I did not wish to amend the article before receiving your feedback. Reversions in mainspace are less productive than discussion behind the scenes, I find. Would you be in a position to comment now, perhaps? BrainyBabe (talk) 07:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have commented - I must have missed your wonderful post the first time around - so sorry! Awadewit (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McDonald's Cycle Center/archive2

We have been awaiting your response at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McDonald's Cycle Center/archive2.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on the new map.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I see you have made edits in the last 10 minutes. We need your opinion on the new maps created to make you happy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
You may have overlooked the size alternatives. Note the original map was 450px. He has created 300, 350 and 400 px versions and located them in three articles. Did you have an opinion on the sizes?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Please respond at the FAC. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

A Vindication of the Rights of Woman

We are currently translating this article into French (looks good!). No problem there, except as regards Wollstonecraft's Vindication itself : indeed, I had assumed from the beginning that I could safely consider all references to it as referring to A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (Ed. Miriam Brody Kramnick. Rev. ed. Harmondsworth), Penguin, 2004 (ISBN 0-14-144125-9).

Now I am no longer sure this is the case, since I can't find (through the Internet) such quotations as "considering females rather as women than human creatures" (supposed to be on page 109). Which edition of Vindication have you been using yourself then ?

Best regards. --Azurfrog (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I used: Wollstonecraft, Mary. The Vindications: The Rights of Men and The Rights of Woman. Eds. D.L. Macdonald and Kathleen Scherf. Toronto: Broadview Literary Texts, 1997. ISBN 1-55111-088-1. Awadewit (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hymns for the Amusement of Children

I was wondering if you could fill in the ECCO information for Hymns for the Amusement of Children on the image pages. I haven't had access to the 18th century collection for half a year now so I can no longer find the links to the physical matter. They are all from the same scan. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling that they could probably just be swapped out for the Wikisource versions if needed. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I can't find Hymns in ECCO. Awadewit (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Meh. I had an edition somewhere when I was working on the Bibliography update. I don't like merely citing it without some third party source to back it up. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Palmetto Leaves

I thought it best to go on here instead of an archived GA comments page.

I was going to ask you if you think it could even pass FAC as it has the book has very little critical material written about it. But I was hoping you were gearing the improvements toward that end. I thought I could get a DYK out of it, not an FAC, but I'll be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong.

So I also hope you continue to prod me to improve it. To that, I have to say, however, about the oranges as symbolism, that if it's still not clear, I'm flummoxed. Sometimes I take it for granted that people are following my mental bouncing ball, but I don't know quite how to make it clearer that the orange tree dies from frost, sprouts back, gets assaulted by beetles, yet forges on is Stowe's symbol for her encounters with the massive bureaucracy of the Freedman's Bureau, building the church, its burning down, and rebuilding it. Removing the second sentence about the orange trees makes that comparison invalid and more confusing. Maybe if we let it sit and stew for a bit a whole bucket of clarity will come.

I have an article at FAC now and hope to nominate another after this one...passes or is archived. If you update the Urgents list can you link St. Johns River to Oral sex? I think that would be the trick to get more folks to read it.

Thanks for a rigorous review! I look forward to more in the future. --Moni3 (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

FAC, as you are well aware, does not require there to be any scholarship on a topic, so without a doubt this could pass FAC and I don't think anyone will look at this article and say it doesn't have enough heft to be an FA (thereby engendering one of those long debates about whether or not every article should have a chance at FA). However, it is my personal opinion that not all articles should be nominated for FAC. Mounseer Nongtongpaw is one that I will not nominate for FAC, although it contains every scrap published on the work. This is really a personal decision - do you think the article is an insufficient explanation for the reader? That is how I feel about The Ladies of Grace Adieu and Other Stories - it is just not substantive enough of an explanation of the book to satisfy the discerning reader, so I won't be nominating it for FAC. Awadewit (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Inner German border images issue

You'd said that the image licence on File:Helmut kleinert memorial.jpg was your only issue still outstanding in the Inner German border FAC. I've asked the contributor to send the usual licence-confirmation e-mail to OTRS but s/he hasn't replied yet. However, I still have the confirmatory email on Flickr in which s/he originally gave permission to use the image under cc-by-2.0. Would this be of any use? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, the contributor has just sent an e-mail to OTRS giving permission. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you able to mark this issue as resolved now? I'm anxious to get the FAC closed as soon as possible so that I can secure November 9th on the Main Page. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I generally wait until the OTRS ticket actually appears on the image. Why don't you contact NuclearWarfare? He's an OTRS volunteer and can expedite the process. Awadewit (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll do that, but I've sent you the confirmation by e-mail so that you can see it's already been sent. I really do not want this FA to miss the target date because of a bureaucratic delay in adding a ticket to an image. You have the confirmation in your inbox; can't you sign off the FA in the meantime? -- ChrisO (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
We're aware of the date issues, ChrisO; not to worry (unless other issues surface). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Butting in: I looked, but I don't see this? (Doesn't appear to be in the queue and searching for oops, helmut and/or kleinert doesn't get any hits - although "kleinert", if you know German, gets some nice, ahem, "enhancement" spam. Does the text of the email reference the image? Эlcobbola talk 13:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I'll send it to you if you wish. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Is Elcobbola an OTRS volunteer? Contacting NW (as suggested by Awadewit) might help expedite the OTRS matters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
According to his talk page he is, and I've contacted NW. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks ChrisO (sorry ElC, can't keep up with everything :) Since ElC speaks German, then he's your man ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
ChrisO, sending it might well be helpful so I can see what to look for. I've been OTRS for over a year; where ever have you been Sandy? :) Эlcobbola talk 14:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, sent. The contributor is actually Dutch and the e-mail is in English, so being able to speak German isn't strictly needed here. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Found it! One moment and you'll be set. Эlcobbola talk 14:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, so I lost the plot (and Awadewit got lots of orange bars :) Thanks, all! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Great, thanks ElC. Can we move on to FAC closure now, Sandy? :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The email's body was blank (content was attached as a .txt), which is why the search didn't catch it. I do speak Dutch, but it was in English, so it's a moot point. Tagged as 2009102710032031. Эlcobbola talk 14:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Chris, this closure is in Karanacs' hand, she is aware of the time issues, and there's no need to worry. She will get to it in time, and she is in charge of the decision, since I became involved in the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd forgotten that you'd recused yourself. No worries; Karanacs has promoted the article. Thanks for your help! -- ChrisO (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I see this has all been resolved. Awadewit (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Nansen - clarification

Could you please clarify on the FAC page for Nansen's Fram expedition whether there are any further image issues outstanding, or whether in your view all such issues are settled? Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Awadewit (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


The Teamwork Barnstar
For being one of the copyeditors and reviewers who helped get Makinti Napanangka to FAC, but also for just generally being part of the FAC team. Actually, I went looking for "the really big barnstar" that I could pin to your virtual lapel, but there wasn't one of those :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Goya

Thanks for your insight and comments on the FAC, but I'm going to let this fall. I have a clear idea from your and Ruhrfisch's views as to what needs to be done, I can see a much better article, but things (good things!) happened in real life and I wasn't able to respond as much as I would have liked. I'll work over the next few weeks and come back with an improved page. Ta again. Ceoil (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Understood. Thanks so much for working on this article - I was delighted to see it nominated! Awadewit (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No Line on the Horizon FAC

Hello, thanks for your comments on the No Line on the Horizon FAC. I have tried to address them by adding a point to the rationale that I previously neglected to include. I would appreciate it if you could respond to the change I have made in regards to the FAC. Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Responded. Awadewit (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 03:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

FAC reviews

Just to let you know, I am currently involved in two ongoing reviews at Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/GA2 and Talk:Anne Hathaway (actress)/GA1. I was also involved in the Jackie Robinson FAC last month (although more in prior FAC noms for that article. This is in addition to my own seven GAC, a PR and a FAC. As I see interesting articles in the queue, I will comment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering you have ongoing FACs every week for the past few months, I would expect you to be doing several reviews a week. According to Sandy, it takes about 12 reviews to pass an FA. We, as nominators, therefore owe a great deal to the FAC community. Awadewit (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

TFA/R images

Awadewit, I know you're quite overworked (and thanks again for the work on the Urgents template, which I *really* think is helping), but I'm wondering if you'd be interested in another small task, that hopefully won't take too much time. I've noticed that the blurbs posted at WP:TFA/R rarely fit the mainpage needs (size, image licensing, etc.). Today's TFA turned out to have a copyvio image that was deleted from Commons: [2] [3] Would you be interested in periodically reviewing the WP:TFA/R page for image compliance in the proposed blurbs? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't take on any more tasks at this time. Apologies! Awadewit (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem; Raul knows image policy, I was just trying to shorten a step. Take care, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Priestley House

Hi A, I updated Joseph Priestley House with the reopening and two refs. I also changed a few verbs to past tense. There is a bit in the Daily Item that this a temporary agreement - I added that it can be renewed annually. When you get a chance, could you look things over please? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've made some rather drastic cuts. Let me know what you think. Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pruning it. While I agree that much of the material needed to be cut, I wonder if it might not be worth adding a phrase back in, something like "Despite public meetings, protest letters, and a general "public outcry" against closure,[refs] on August 14, 2009 the state closed the Priestley House and three other PHMC museums indefinitely due to a lack of funding as part of an ongoing budget crisis." The only thing I added was Despite public meetings, protest letters, and a general "public outcry" against closure, Current refs 92 and 93 would be added to the closure announcement, refs 94 and 95 would back up the new phrase, with the Hoffman ref pruned of the list of names (they are in the document). What do you think? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
That sounds fine to me. Awadewit (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
OK< I have added them back in. I know you somtimes combine refs, so feel free to do that if you think it looks nicer. Thanks too for the image review at FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought I usually left refs UNcombined - easier to edit in the future, IMO. You're welcome for the image review - looks like the article is on the verge of being promoted! Awadewit (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Phew - I did the refs correctly then! Yes, for an article on a park that is literally a parking lot and two picnic tables, which I once thought would never get to GA, this is pretty smooth sailing so far (jinxed it just now ;-) ). My guess is the Museum will not know any more or enough, and the image will have to be fair use. Wait and see, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Image review request

You kindly reviewed the images at Buildings of Nuffield College, Oxford (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buildings of Nuffield College, Oxford/archive1) - I've now added another fair-use image (File:Nuffield College 1st design.jpg) so would you mind updating your comments, please? The FUR is largely based on the FUR for the other non-free image, so I'm hoping there won't be major problems. Thanks in anticipation. BencherliteTalk 13:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Everything looks fine except for the date - the FUR should include the original publication date of the image. Awadewit (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ton That Dinh

Clarified the image YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive) 00:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Responded. Awadewit (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Inns of Chancery

Thanks, firstly, for the affirmation and work on Gray's Inn; it was yesterday's featured article! As a related article, I've been working on Inns of Chancery - what do you think would be necessary to get it to FA? Ironholds (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have time to look at the article right now. Awadewit (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
That's fair enough, thanks anyway. I just found another (excellent) source, so I'll head off to weave that in anyway. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

And of course it needed another hour of tweaks

Here you go.

You're the star of today's blog post. All the best with that dissertation! Durova357 19:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Guilty pleasures

Hi Awadewit. I know you are busy, but I thought you might enjoy a little break from all the hard work. I was appalled this morning by the state of The Flame and the Flower (an article on the book that essentially created the modern historical romance subgenre) and spent the afternoon fixing it up.This was one of the first historical romances I ever read, and I loved it then, but now I can't seem to make myself wade through any of Woodiwiss's prose.<sigh/> I think it might be possible to get this to FA-level, but I'm unsure of what that will take. As you have expressed interest in historical romance before (Georgette Heyer), and you have lots and lots of experience writing articles on books, I hoped you might be able to provide some advice. I am in absolutely no hurry, so this is a complete at-your-convienence request.

If you feel like taking a look, note that the lead is wholly inadequate, the plot summary needs a major rewrite, and the rest of the prose is rough, but the basic structure is there. My questions:

  • Is the layout/section heading choice appropriate? Should I be focusing on anything else?
  • The novel is often used as an example in criticism of the historical romance genre as a whole(esp the 1970s-early 1980s period), but the book is usually mentioned in passing while the major genre themes are further explored. I wasn't sure how much of that more general criticism to include. For example, I know of several articles on the use of rape as a plot device in historical romances of this period, but I'm not sure whether to bring that detail (which may not even mention this book) into this article.
  • I'm not sure how much I need to flesh out the background section. I know there are reams of articles/books written on the sexual revolution and the feminist movement, but many of these don't discuss this book, and some just mention this book as an example of changes. I want to provide enough context without venturing into WP:OR.
  • I think you have access to more scholarly sources than I do. I'd appreciate any advice on what types of journals to try to search to expand this.

Thanks, and if you are too busy, I completely understand. Karanacs (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"an article on the book that essentially created the modern historical romance subgenre" Gone with the Wind no longer exists? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
There's actually quite a bit of disagreement on whether Gone with the Wind is a romance novel, since Scarlett and Rhett don't live happily ever after. Even if it is accepted as part of that genre, it is not in the same style as the modern historical romance. Too long, too many husbands, not enough sex ;) Karanacs (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Great edit summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I will look at the article soon. Awadewit (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

*chomp*

Does the cited source use the word "biting" ? DS (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I gave you a link to extensive notes on Austen in the edit summary. Please look through that to answer your question. Awadewit (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award

As a past WP:FOUR awardee you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Commented. Awadewit (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

award

Woooo-ooooo I hereby award this Horror Award to Awadewit, for her chiselling away and sculpting of a horror masterpiece in The Historian (hehehe, I have wanted to give out one of these cute skull barnstars for a while..) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Short referencing question

Hi,

Ealdgyth suggested I talk to you about sourcing. If you have the time ...

I was trying to use [[File:Lucas gusher.jpg]] in an article but found that the sourcing appears to incomplete. I managed to find a reliable source that published the same photo online attributing its the photo's ownership to another source but without any details. The photo itself is from 1901 (since this is when the event occurred). Is it the case that, regardless of when the photo was taken, it is the date that it was first made available to the public that counts as the date of publication? Or could the fact that we know from the indirect source that it was taken in 1901 be sufficient to prove that it is now in the public domain?

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

For copyright, it is the date of publication that matters, so you need to demonstrate that the photograph was published before 1923, not just taken before 1923. Awadewit (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Table Rock FAC

Hi Awadewit, could you please revisit your comments at this FAC? The image in question has been removed. Thanks, LittleMountain5 03:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your image review for Upper and Lower Table Rock... it was promoted today! LittleMountain5 02:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks and congratulations! Awadewit (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Midshipman FAC

Just wanted to say a quick thanks for your help with those pesky images! Kirk (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome - thanks for your good humor through it all! Awadewit (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima restrictions/Evidence

You have been included as evidence as part of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions/Evidence.

On something different, I sent you a source over Skype on an old discussion of ours. I meant to send it quite a long time ago and I just discovered a note about it while searching through some old paper work. If you wish to pursue that angle (which I was hoping you would at the FAC but you made it clear you weren't too interested) I can provide some related sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If you could post the information to the relevant talk pages, that would be more useful. Skype conversations are easily lost in my world. Besides, perhaps someone else can help add the information, if I can't get to it right away. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. By the way, if you don't want to check the Ode on a Grecian Urn FAC, could you at least weigh in here. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. Awadewit (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

L'incoronazione di Poppea - peer review

Hi, and thank you for the useful copyedits to the article. I look forward to your more detailed comments. It would be helpful to me if you could post them, or some of them, before the weekend as I shall be away for five days from Sunday (in Rome, believe it or not!) If you don't have time, however, not to worry.

Now, I owe you an apology. I intended to ask you when The Historian was coming to FAC. A quick check with the article reveals that it was actually promoted three days ago; somehow, I missed the entire FAC. I can't understand how this occurred - distracted by Poppea, I suppose. Anyway, please accept my apologies and congratulations. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll do my best - I'm working less and less in wikitime. If I don't make it, I'll post my comments at the FAC. Btw, what do you think of Gounod's Roméo et Juliette? I saw it the other weekend for the first time and was a bit disappointed. The music sounded kind of similar all the way through and the tomb scene - ack! A long duet that was barely tragic? The people sitting in front of me were really confused by that. :) And no worries about The Historian - I don't expect people to rush to all of my FACs! Awadewit (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Upper Pine Bottom State Park

<font=3> Thanks again for your image review - Upper Pine Bottom State Park made featured article today! Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wadewitz. You have new messages at MuZemike's talk page.
Message added 17:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MuZemike 17:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Bale Out FAC comment

Hey, thanks for the attention to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bale Out/archive1. I have responded to your comment there. Hope you are doing well, Cirt (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wadewitz/Archive_42&oldid=1146578271"