User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 5
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Paine
Hi, Awadewit. (I finally broke off editing Reagan. What a mess). About your comments at WP:PR - certainly references to scholarly works such a books about Paine are great, but don't you think there is something to be said for using fn that reference things a user can simply click to verify? If I write "Johnson, p. 2345" that may or may not be accurate, but a web page from a reputable source (maybe the Library of Congress site or the Paine Museum for example) might do just as well, no? Just wondering. Kaisershatner 14:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I feel for your pain over at Reagan. I'm not sure how that is ever going to make it to FA. I would only endorse a web-based source if the source were a scholarly source or if there were no other source available. In the case of the Paine article, and in the case of most humanities articles, the best scholarship is usually printed, not available for free on the internet. Literary scholars and historians tend not to put their entire books or articles up on the web for everyone to view (there are complex reasons for this). I do not think that wikipedia should be claiming that its articles are based on sites that are not written by scholars or peer-reviewed by scholars (many of the sites that I saw at Paine are written for high-school history students). It should be claiming that its articles are based on the best scholarship available. That is one way that wikipedia will gain a reputation for reliability both within the academic world and with the public. Also, if editors writing the articles only read superficial websites such as the ones I saw over at the Paine article, the articles they write using those websites are not going to be very good, either. Articles are only as good as their sources. This applies to the Reagan article as well - this is why I kept trying to get the editors to read scholarly books about Reagan and his policies. If they had, they would have been forced to include more nuanced views. Awadewit 17:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Guide to Science
Thought I'd bring this comment about the guide to Science FAC here since it's going quite off topic on a lost cause! It's not intended as a vigorous defense of my position, just a friendly aside and a clarification of where I'm coming from since your final point is almost correct. I'm not interested in writing a full history of science, just mentioning the part that this book plays in that history, or even just highlighting that the book is now relegated to the history of science as no more than a footnote (hence the lack of literary commentary by established sources).
Also, I do slightly object to the suggestion that the comments I have made in the article are the intellectual equivalent of willing money into my pocket! With this in mind, I think a page on gravity has room for the social politics behind its development - the fact that Newton was a bit of a bastard for example and used his success with gravity to force his other theories on an unsuspecting scientific establishment. If that was all that could be said about gravity, I think the article would still make for an interesting read! Which is all I had wanted to do with my article. GDallimore (Talk) 85.189.199.237 19:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- From the perspective of a literary critic (which I am), your page is unscholarly in a way similar to pseudoscience (but not exactly like) - for one, it dismisses the experts and their methods. It's interesting that you think that the gravity page should have a social history of gravity; I find that most scientists want to entirely divorce social and cultural forces from science. (I saw that in your posts at FAC too - "caloric" and its cognates have changed meaning over time!) I can see scientists, especially physicists such as yourself, suggesting a "History of gravity" page right now. (Minor point: was there a "scientific establishment" when Newton was alive since the concept and methods of "science" itself were not yet solidfied?) Also, what do you think about revising the page's structure so that it reflects these ideas more clearly. Instead of "accuracy," why not have a "History of science" section which explains the development of these ideas in the nineteenth century (from sources) and what role popular science books like this one played in that (perhaps another section or subsection labelled "Popularization")? Awadewit 19:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean by dismissing experts and their methods? Literary experts? I wasn't dismissing, just taking a different approach. Scientific experts? At the level of the Guide to Science, I am an expert. :) Just trying to understand because I'm still not sure I understand the problem. Think of it this way. Caloric theory (and more obviously, Electrical Fluid theory) did go through multiple versions. That is the nature of scientific development. Theories are proposed and subsequently modified. The thing with caloric and electrical fluid is that the entire family of theories has been completely discarded. Consequently, it doesn't matter which version of the theory the Guide to Science is talking about, nor which version of the theory any references are talking about since the every single version of the theory has been consigned to the dustbin of history. Things get a bit more complex with luminiferous aether, because there are some variations of that theory which might still be relevant to modern physics. Anyway, I can't take a detailed discussion of this into the article in the way you suggest, because I don't know how the book played a part in all this and have no references to tell me. Consequently, all I can do with the article is what I have already done, bar minor adjustments. Maybe I'll just leave it as a project I am unable to finish by myself and see what other people can bring to it.
- You are dismissing literary experts by not including them; did you even try to do any research for this page?. A page on a literary work cannot restrict itself to a single method of interpretation, especially when that research has not been published. Also, you seem to be missing the point of an article on a literary work. The article should primarily focus on the work itself while also putting it into historical context (such as the history of science), but your article says next to nothing about the text itself - its style, themes, ways of representing scientific language, etc.
- As for "scientific establishment", I apologise for my lazy phraseology. To be honest, I'm not convinced there has ever been such a thing. There are, and have been since before Newton's day, bodies of scientists, some more powerful than others. Obtaining stature within a powerful body enables your ideas to be heard by a wider audience and perhaps ensures that your ideas are given more credence than you might otherwise have expected. This happened with Newton. After his initial success with Gravity (which is itself now seen to be heavily flawed) he was able to throw his weight around with some of his ideas in optics, which were also flawed. I think this resulted in the subject being held back since his influence meant that alternative ideas were suppressed and it was not until the late 19th/early 20th century that the wave nature of light was questioned and we started thinking about wave/particle duality. This is where the social aspect of science becomes important since you need to know why one scientist's ideas are being accepted while another's are being rejected. Particularly in the modern day, where the media have the final say about what scientific ideas get aired.
- Well, I agree with some of what you are saying, but not all. Certainly among scientists themselves, what the media decides to report on or not report on is less relevant than how projects are funded and what is chosen for inclusion in the major journals. Awadewit 19:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Take the MMR controversy, for example. One man said he thought three single vaccines would be safer than a triple vaccine, in conflict with not only every other expert on the subject, but also his own research! Nevertheless, the papers published the story, beefed it up as the new BSE controversy, 15% of parents panicked, and now we have outbreaks of measles hitting the country for the first time in decades. Science may wish to stand apart from society, but it is a sad reflection on society that it cannot. (that last sentance is more of a soundbite than a carefully through through statement, so don't try to read too much into it!) GDallimore (Talk) 17:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would say that this issue has less to do with scientific discovery and more to do with scientific illiteracy. I believe that scientists have a responsibility to try and educate the public (evolution is a prime example of this) about their disciplines but scientific discovery itself has not been impacted by the MMR controversy, sadly, only public health. Awadewit 19:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Physics
Hi, Awadewit. I noticed you made some good comments at Talk:Physics/wip. Let me encourage you to also give your input directly to the main article! If you see ways to improve it, please be bold and make some changes. Also, you might consider commenting on discussions about the article at Talk:Physics. Thanks! Gnixon 02:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Will do. I tend to focus on readability for the educated lay reader and copyediting on science articles since I know very little about science myself (at least in comparison to my friends who are science majors; yet I seem to know a shockingly large amount compared to other humanities types!). I am an avid reader of popular science books, but I know how limiting that really is. I do feel that many of the science articles should be accessible to a person like myself who has an interest in science but does not have the mathematical background to fully understand many of its concepts. Awadewit 03:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- It would be extremely helpful if you'd lend your layman/writer eye to the physics-related articles. Often scientists really don't understand why their poorly composed, jargon-laden prose can be difficult for lay readers to understand. Perhaps you'd consider joining the Physics wikiproject. Gnixon 06:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- I already feel like I'm doing too much at wikipedia as it is and I belong to way too many projects as it is. Perhaps you could steer me to particular articles that need help? That usually works better for me. I'll work on physics for a while and then move on to something else that you suggest. (Also, I would feel strange about joining a project dedicated to a field about which I know nothing. I would feel like a poseur.) Awadewit 06:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- The big problems with Physics are the intro and history sections. I've recently made some changes to the intro that I hope makes all the content reasonable, but maybe you could improve some of the writing. If you know much about the history of physics, that section needs a lot of work---it should be much shorter, and right now its coverage is kind of random. I'd consider you a hero if you gave us a concise, well-balanced History section, but that might require too much perspective. Another challenge would be to convert the bulleted lists in Theory and Research into readable prose. I'll remember your offer to work on other articles. Someone recently mentioned dark energy as one that got too jargony too fast. Thanks! Gnixon 12:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- I already feel like I'm doing too much at wikipedia as it is and I belong to way too many projects as it is. Perhaps you could steer me to particular articles that need help? That usually works better for me. I'll work on physics for a while and then move on to something else that you suggest. (Also, I would feel strange about joining a project dedicated to a field about which I know nothing. I would feel like a poseur.) Awadewit 06:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- It would be extremely helpful if you'd lend your layman/writer eye to the physics-related articles. Often scientists really don't understand why their poorly composed, jargon-laden prose can be difficult for lay readers to understand. Perhaps you'd consider joining the Physics wikiproject. Gnixon 06:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
SPCK
Hi! Isn't the page you've just created for SPCK the same as Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge? All the best, DrKiernan 11:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- No wonder I couldn't find it! They appear to be the same organization. I just know them under a different name (I wonder when it was changed). The current page should have a redirect - do you know how to create one of those? Awadewit 23:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Gertrude Barrows Bennett
Thank you for the suggestions on the Gertrude Barrows Bennett article. I've made your first two suggestions regarding the fair use rationale and making sure the list of short stories is complete (it is). I also like your other suggestions and will work on them in the coming weeks. I've requested some scholarly articles which should fill in a writing style section. I do wonder, though, if a "Women in science fiction" section wouldn't be repetitive of Women in science fiction and Feminist science fiction. For now, I've included these links as a See Also section in the article. If you feel that the article needs any more work to reach Good Article standards, please let me know. Best,--Alabamaboy 23:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on the FA promotion! You'd probably deserve a barnstar for your work - I got lost somewhere along the way and had a busy weekend, so couldn't contribute as much as I wanted - the amount of comments was staggering. Have a nice day! Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 05:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! I was surprised by the amount of debate myself. All of my FACs up until now have been very smooth. Awadewit 05:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Awadewit!
Hi Awadewit, thank you so much for all your help with Encyclopædia Britannica! When you arrived, I was already beginning to think that there couldn't be much wrong with the article, since we'd reviewed it so often. "Look upon my texts, ye mighty, and despair!" — oops! ;) I'm really grateful you came, and that you came when you did; Heaven knows how bad it was before! Editing with you was like playing, and a real pleasure; I hope we can do it again. I've really appreciated your work on Mary Wollstonecraft and her contemporaries; when I can steal a moment's peace, I'll try to pay Original Stories from Real Life the same attention as you did, although I know already that I won't be able to find much to improve. Willow 16:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for your kind words. Sometimes I feel that other editors see my long lists and groan in frustration. I would very much like to work with you as well; I have been editing pages basically by myself and it would be nice to work with some other people! (Apparently, the eighteenth century doesn't draw a lot of interest at wikipedia. I even had to create my own user box - there was a box for every other time period except the eighteenth century.) I'm just sorry that I didn't get to vote support for Britannica. The next time that I looked at the FAC, it had already been closed. I can assure you that I was planning to do so. I would appreciate any suggestions you could make regarding Original Stories. It is a difficult text to write on because there is so little scholarly work (therefore, no real consensus). Awadewit 16:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
That's really nice! It's fun to edit with other people, don't you think? I know how it feels to edit alone; sometimes when I was working on knitting articles, I would get really lonely and wonder if anyone would ever read them. :( I'll try to help with your articles, although I'm not sure if I can contribute anything.
The 18th century is really interesting, no? You begin to feel the modern world taking shape, although — true confessions — I'm kind of a Romantic, as you might've guessed from my Shelley quote. I translated a few mid-18th century texts last summer, but they're over at Wikisource and, I fear, uninteresting for most people. :( I was planning a "history of science" article here about the principle of least action, something truly beautiful, and I wanted to share with readers the pleasure of reading the originals. When I was beginning, though, I was called away to calm an edit war at Photon and somehow I've not gone back. (I'm easily distracted.) Maybe this summer! :) Willow 22:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't know what the principle of least action was until just a moment ago (I just had my live-in physics expert explain it to me). You must know quite a lot about physics to write such a page! Sounds fascinating. I like to copyedit and review science pages so that they are accessible for the educated lay reader (I'm an avid reader of popular science books myself). If you ever need any help along those lines, let me know. I can't imagine what would cause an edit war at photon - what ideology gets wrapped up with the photon? Awadewit 01:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I know, isn't it funny? When I first arrived there, though, it was white-hot serious; they were trying to ban each other over the meaning of mass. The formulae weren't in question, nor the predicted physics, but just the words used to describe the physics. It did end happily, though, although one user was banned for something unrelated.
You're lucky to live with a physics expert! :) I don't really know that much, but I'm a devoted enthusiast. A wide circle of smart friends helps me out, too, particularly one professor to whom I teach knitting; she seems really happy to talk with me about her work and physics in general. I would love it if you could give me feedback on my articles. I'm always torn between experts wanting everything expressed in the latest supercalifragalisticexpealidocious notation ("it's the only way to see the true unity of the subject") and others thinking my articles absurdly high. I try to please everyone, but it's woefully hard. Right now, I'm working off and on with equipartition theorem; any advice on how to explain it or illustrate it would fall like the "gentle rain of Heaven upon the place beneath." Thanks for your help, Willow 12:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do, although math is definitely not my forte. Awadewit 05:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
My intuition tells me that we'll learn a lot from one another, like the Country Mouse and City Mouse of fable. :) I'm really grateful that you opened my eyes to how people interpret images; I began to get an inkling of how much I didn't know. I'll try not to plague you too much with questions, since your time is better spent on articles and I can't expect to make up years of a neglected education; but I'll do my best to keep up at least. Willow 08:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
A few suggestions for Original Stories
I looked over Original Stories and your contributions shine throughout! :) I don't have the five keen eyes of Opabinia, which is why she's always having to correct me. Here are some suggestions, though:
- the double lead-off sentence is a little confusing for me. I would move the second clause ("illustrate her lifelong commitment...") to the second paragraph, and devote the first paragraph to the, umm, prosaic details of publishing. The former might make a good topic sentence, although I would expand on how Original Stories is representative of all her thinking about women and society in general.
- I'll work on the lead some more. I have never been completely happy it yet. I don't think that I am very good at writing leads, actually. Awadewit 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't like the two critics at the end going into the semiotics of the illustration of Ms. Mason and the two girls, Mary and Caroline. Forgive me, but the criticisms seemed silly and colored by the critics' own prejudices. The high tenor of the work seemed to be diminished, ending that way; need the criticism be included?
- Well, everyone's interpretations are inflected by their own "prejudices," as you say, but there is no way to escape that it literary studies - you simply have to take it into account and try to read as much scholarship from as many different approaches as possible. Actually, both analyses of the illustration are quite good because they use specific details from the illustration to back up their interpretation. Can you tell me what seemed silly to you so that I can try to make it appear more respectable? Also, these two analyses are the best analyses of the illustrations that have been published. I felt that I should say something about the illustrations, but I am restricted by the published sources, as you know. Awadewit 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I should say straight away that I've read next to nothing of literature criticism (I think) although I've read books about books, so maybe that counts. Anyway, "silly" was really the wrong word and I'm sorry for not taking more time to understand them. My first impression was, "how can they know that?" It seemed too much like a Rorschach test, trying to intuit the feelings of the illustrator from the poses of the illustrated. For me, I'm not always sure I can read people's feelings in conversation; I could never trust myself to read them from hired drawings at the distance of centuries. I'm not sure if I'm expressing myself well, but those were my thoughts when I read them. Also, the word "suffocating" offended my feelings a little.
- I don't think that the critics are trying to intuit the illustrator's feelings. They are attempting to describe what the image conveys to the reader; part of what Blake scholars use to do that is their knowledge of Blake's other works. He is a tough writer - he developed his own unique complex system of allusions and symbols (there are whole books written on this topic). I will try to make this clearer in the article. Awadewit 05:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Some of the quotations seemed ambiguously worded or difficult for me to parse; perhaps you could phrase them in your own words? For example, I think I got the gist of the "fiction of ideas" sentence, but I didn't really understand it.
- Sure, I can do that. One of the reasons I decided to include so many quotations this time was because my last FAC, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, which I thought was the best article I had yet written for wikipedia because it was truly a summary of the scholarly consensus, was attacked at FAC for being unclear as to sources (who said what). It was rather tiresome and I wanted to avoid having to go through that again. Awadewit 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I know the feeling all too well :( If it's any comfort, I promise not to be mean... ;) I think you should trust yourself to clarify it for us. :) Willow 18:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- But stringent is good! Awadewit 05:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- It'd be nice to understand better the intended use and audience of the book. Of course, it's intended for children, but does anyone know which ages or whether it was read much? Did children like it?
- No one knows this, I'm afraid. Awadewit 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm also curious about Mary and Caroline — were they characterized differently? Maybe they had complementary faults and virtues? Did they talk with each other? More on the plot itself might be engaging. Is there a freely available copy somewhere?
- There really isn't a plot. This work was once characterized as a novel on the page, but one of the reasons that I would dispute that characterization is because so much of the text is inset stories told to Mary and Caroline. The two girls are really ciphers - they are not fleshed out characters (the reader learns very little about them and they don't engage in much conversation). They are simply part of a structure that has been erected by Wollstonecraft to convey the other stories within the book. A lot of eighteenth-century children's literature is what we might now call didactic, but at the time it was the height of fashion. One reason that early scholars reacted so bitterly against it is because its style is so different from the post-Alice in Wonderland tradition that specifically mocks it (Carroll's "How doth the little crocodile..." is a parody of Isaac Watts' "How doth the little busy bee...", a classic children's hymn from the eighteenth century that, apparently, many children learned). Unfortunately, I have not been able to locate an online copy of Original Stories. I have checked all of the usual places and searched google - all to no avail. If you could find one, that would be great. Awadewit 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I also couldn't find a digital version, either, but I did find a 1990 facsimile version available for sale
- Wollstonecraft, Mary (1791). Original Stories from Real Life. Woodstock Books; facsimile of 1791 edition (July 1990). ISBN 978-1854770578.
- I was going to volunteer to transcribe it, but then I saw that it was 204 pages — eep! I think that there's a way of scanning in the pages and converting them to text, but I don't know how any of that is done.
- That is a lot of pages (and very expensive!). Is that even legal? I guess it would all depend on how old the edition is, etc. I have a digital copy of the original texts from Eighteenth Century Collections Online (ECCO) but that copy is only supposed to be available to people who have a subscription to the database or who are students/faculty at institutions that do. It seems like it would be illegal to post that copy up, even though the text itself is in the public domain. There's something in copyright law about the digitization process making the "product" copyrightable again. Awadewit 15:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know much copyright law, but I think it would be legal if we scanned and transcribed the text ourselves, being in the public domain. I agree with you, though, that we shouldn't take the ECCO copy; that doesn't seem right, even if it were exactly the same as our transcription. Perhaps they might be willing to release their digitization into the public domain if you asked them nicely? Willow 22:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Your description of "inset tales" made me think of the The Book of One Thousand and One Nights. It likewise has two undeveloped characters (Dunyazad and the King) listening to the stories, which are fantastically entertaining but often contain "a warning for those who let themselves be warned." Willow 09:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Original Stories is a little more coherent than that, but that is the idea. The Book of One Thousand and One Nights was very popular during the late eighteenth century - it may have been an influence on Wollstonecraft, I don't know. There are a lot of books like this at the time - collections of tales with a loose frame. It seems to have been a popular genre. Awadewit 15:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Neat! I didn't know when Scheherazade's tales had made it to the West. I had a vague recollection of Richard Francis Burton translating it on his way to find the source of the Nile, but I didn't know its earlier history. Thanks! :) Willow 22:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Was the first edition illustrated as well? I wasn't sure whether there should be a comma in "second illustrated" in the lead.
- No, it was not. I have inserted the comma to hopefully make that clearer. Awadewit 15:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help at Plymouth Colony
Hey, thanks for the help with copyediting Plymouth Colony. I appreciate your work, and look forward to seeing how you treat the rest of the article. The changes you made have been major improvements, and I want to thank you for doing so, and I only hope you can finish the article. One thing; you mentioned that you had some POV concerns with the article. If you could point to some specific places where a non-neutral stance is taken on an issue, I can either reword it or remove it. Also, if you see somewhere where some item seems lacking, I can find additional sources to fill in the gaps. Thanks for your help and comments, the article is really improving, and I would like to help it in places where needed.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I will continue to copyedit, but I really feel that this article is not ready for FA yet. See my responses at FAC. Awadewit 06:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
sources in general
It looks like we have some complementary interest--I'm a biologist with an hobby in the 18th c. I am probably one of the few non-specialists who have read the complete works of Maria Edgeworth, including the schoolbooks she did with her father. Let's do some teaching. See my user p., & perhaps email me from there. DGG 06:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is rare for even an eighteenth-century specialist to have read Edgeworth's children's texts (she, of course, features prominently in my dissertation). One of my favorites is "The Barring-Out;" it's so Miltonian. I would classify myself as an 18cist with a side interest in science (evolution and physics top the list, usually). I have started a "source manifesto" of sorts, but I'm afraid I haven't gotten very far with it because of the dissertation and all; it tries to explain what peer-reviewed means and when to use primary sources, etc., but it is slanted wildly towards the humanities because I know very little about sourcing in the sciences - perhaps you could help with that? Is there some way that I could put my "work in progress" up? I've seen people put up drafts of pages before. Can I create some sort of user subpage and post it up there? I was going to post it as a wikipedia essay eventually. Oh, by the way, you might check out the FAC for Plymouth Colony. I'm having a hard time explaining the source issues with that article to the main editor, perhaps you could help. As a librarian, you've probably explained sources more frequently than I have (I've only been teaching freshmen composition for about four years now) - although perhaps your experience was stricly scientific? Awadewit 07:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help
Hi. Just to say thank you very much for your helpful comments on the To Kill a Mockingbird peer review page. It's good to get fresh feedback from someone as experienced as you. I'll try and implement the changes, and encourage others to do so as well. Shrub of power 22:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I think that perhaps you were led astray by the novel template. I have now suggested massive changes for that template so that others do not fall into the same traps. Awadewit 23:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I will do, if you'll give me two or three days to get to it (I'm obsessively trying to salvage an article at FAR at the moment, and it has turned into a semi-rewrite—not that far off finishing there: if I look up for too long now, I may lose momentum).
- That's totally fine. I'm in no rush.
I hope you sense that from this end, my arguments with you are really not that serious—fun really, though I daresay I come over a bit strident. I wouldn't bother if I didn't respect and enjoy your work. qp10qp 21:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks; I feel the same way. Awadewit 22:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still at it (I'm having a highly interrupted day, but in a good way). Will get to the comments (and the resulting arguments—LOL!) later on, maybe tomorrow. qp10qp 18:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Failed Introduction to special relativity GA nomination
First, many thanks for reviewing the article. I nominated it to get a fresh view and you provided it. I came across this article some time ago and thought the intention was excellent but I agree with you that the text is clumsy and the graphs non-standard.
In my experience of teaching relativity it has been painfully clear that the old approach doesn't work. About half the physicists I know do not understand relativity, let alone students. Sadly this experience is corroborated by studies of student's comprehension of the subject. I have noted the comments of educators in the talk page and referenced a study of the problem.
In my opinion the content of the page is reasonable and necessary but, as you pointed out, the presentation is poor. What is needed is for someone with a good style of writing to translate the existing text into something readable. I will have a look at the graphs when I have time. Geometer 11:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for barging in on this conversation, but this looks to be something that I would love to get my teeth into. It has been a long term goal of mine to be able to explain both (special) relativity and quantum mechanics to people at a basic level - I've got my QM patter down pretty well since my girlfriend loves the fact I'm a science geek so maybe it's time to start telling her about SR. Give me a couple of weeks to finish off Thrud the Barbarian and a production of People in Cages I'm working on, and I'll weigh in on this article. Although, judging from a first read-through of the article and the talk page "weigh in" may end up being synonymous with "replace" in an attempt to initiate a WP:BRD cycle? Would you be OK with that? GDallimore (Talk) 13:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I can a post a more thorough list of my problems with the article (where I was confused and hung up by the explanations) on the talk page if that will help. I didn't want to harp on that issue for the GA review since it really was not one of my reasons for failing the page. You might also consider putting the page up for peer review to solicit even more feedback. Awadewit 14:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I acted on some of your critique of this article. I have also had a discussion with GDallimore on improving it. Basically the article should now be fully referenced and the graphs should be more acceptable. The language has been changed but I suffer from two impediments, firstly my english style is rather poor and secondly the text has been changed by so many people that it is very difficult to make it flow. As a result I have put the article back up for GA status. I have also fully referenced the problem that besets most introductions to relativity on the talk page. Geometer 14:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- A lead has now been added. Geometer 09:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Ramón Emeterio Betances
The Ramón Emeterio Betances article was nominated on April 7th. You put it on hold. It is now April 18th. Your promotion to GA or denial is long over due. Tony the Marine 08:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I thought that the page might be copyedited soon, but I will go ahead and fail it if it is imperative that the page no longer remain on hold. Awadewit 15:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Closure of CFD on Category:Women television writers
You may be interested that I am contesting Radiant's closure of this CFD: see User talk:Radiant!#Closure_of_CFD_on_Category:Women_television_writers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey Awadewit. We haven't crossed paths lately, and it's nice to talk to you again. I know that I ask you quite a few questions, but I'm going to ask another one! I have been working very hard to make Ronald Reagan's article much better, and eventually get it to Featured Article status, but since you gave the most deltailed response on the Peer Review about a month ago, I was wondering if you could just reply to me, tell me what you think of the article, tell me what stands out, areas of improvment, etc. (but only if you have the time). I'd say the worst thing that plaugues Reagan's article right now is the lack of proper citations, which I am working every day to fill in, and deleting and/or modifying the statments that i can't find citations for. I am using a number of book sources ( like you suggested), including Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio, A Different Drummer: My Thiry Years With Ronald Reagan, President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination, and for a few minor things about Nancy Reagan, My Turn. As I said, I am working (pretty much by myself) on the citations, but I'm proud to say that I have been awarded two Barnstars for my work.
Again, only if you find the time, please check out the article, and tell me what you think, for I hope that we can work together again. It's still a big work-in-progress, but we're trying! Best, Happyme22 00:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- I will look again at the article, but I think that you have missed my point about sources.
- Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio - This book is co-authored by Cannon; you are already using a Cannon biography of Reagan, so this book won't add much. You already have the Cannon version of Reagan's life.
- A Different Drummer: My Thiry Years With Ronald Reagan - This book must be used very sparingly and very carefully since it is a personal memoir. Like Reagan's autobiography, it is a primary source and not as reliable as a secondary source.
- President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination - This book was written by a journalist. While I applaud your efforts to acquire more sources, you seem to be reaching out to the same kinds of sources you already have.
- You need to have scholarly, secondary sources. Scholarly sources are peer-reviewed by other scholars (since many are rejected, only the best are actually published) and fact-checked more rigorously than books published by popular presses. Books published for the general public rather than for an academic audience often do not cite their sources and often sensationalize the history they tell in order to sell more books. Academics do not have to sell books to make a living, so they are not tempted to sensationalize the history they tell; their histories are therefore more reliable. Also, since professors' careers often rest on the accuracy and persuasiveness of their arguments, they are more concerned with those things than entertaining the reader. Unfortuantely, when I look at the footnotes to your article, I do not see a lot of references to academic works. I keep urging you to read works from that extensive bibliography, but apparently to no avail. The result of having a reference list that only includes popular works is that educated readers will look at it and say "this page can't really be telling the history of Reagan because the editors didn't really do any research." Whether or not that is true, that is the impression conveyed by the sources you present. Also, by reading only popular sources you restrict the kind of history you can tell on the page - you are receiving only a superficial picture of Reagan's biography. I will look over the page in more detail and post another peer review on your talk page, but I must continue to urge you to read scholarly sources. They will greatly enhance your appreciation of and understanding of Reagan. Awadewit 04:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, I understand what you are trying to say. Since I don't own a copy of Lou Cannon's President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime, I am going to try to use that source very sparingly, and switch over all of those sources to ones that I can find in Cannon's Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio. Also, about the scholarly sources suggestion, I'll be glad to do look into those sources, but I don't know where to find them. Any suggestions? Happyme22 22:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- A large public library or a university library would probably have them. Most public universities let the public use their libraries for free; some private universities also let the public use their libraries, but you would probably have to explain your research purpose. I don't know where you live, so I can't suggest any specific libraries. If you live in a small, remote area and don't have access to a large library, you could ask your local library to get the books through interlibrary loan. Awadewit 03:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have two large libraries by me in Southern California, and I will check them out next time I visit. Are there any specific authors/genres that you recommend I search for at the library? I'm sorry to keep asking you questions, but you're a big help! Happyme22 04:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would start with these books from the bibliography; hopefully they will have references to lead you to good sources as well. That is how research generally works - the first books you look at lead you to more books (usually better books).
- I have two large libraries by me in Southern California, and I will check them out next time I visit. Are there any specific authors/genres that you recommend I search for at the library? I'm sorry to keep asking you questions, but you're a big help! Happyme22 04:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- A large public library or a university library would probably have them. Most public universities let the public use their libraries for free; some private universities also let the public use their libraries, but you would probably have to explain your research purpose. I don't know where you live, so I can't suggest any specific libraries. If you live in a small, remote area and don't have access to a large library, you could ask your local library to get the books through interlibrary loan. Awadewit 03:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, I understand what you are trying to say. Since I don't own a copy of Lou Cannon's President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime, I am going to try to use that source very sparingly, and switch over all of those sources to ones that I can find in Cannon's Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio. Also, about the scholarly sources suggestion, I'll be glad to do look into those sources, but I don't know where to find them. Any suggestions? Happyme22 22:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- The American Presidency edited by Alan Brinkley
- Looking Back on the Reagan Presidency edited by Larry Berman
- Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore. by James T. Patterson Awadewit 04:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok thanks a lot Awadewit. When I get to it, I'll look into those books. Thanks for your time. --Happyme22 16:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Deletion review of Category:Women television writers
See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 21#Category:Women_television_writers. Having nominated the category for deletion review, I am notifying all those who participated in the original CFD, plus the closing admin and the independent reviewer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Massive thanks
I wanted to pass on my sincere thanks for all the feedback you've given my literary articles in recent weeks. If I can ever assist you in any way, please let me know. Best, --Alabamaboy 23:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- You are welcome. I seem to be on a bit of a crusade to improve the literature articles and literature-related articles on wikipedia. If you want, I urge you to comment on the new novel template I have proposed at the novel project. I believe that the current template encourages editors to produce sparknotes-like pages and sections full of unnecessary lists. Whether or not you agree with my position, I would encourage you to join in the debate since you have written an excellent novel page - you have valuable experience! Awadewit 01:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Polwhele
Hello! I am drafting an article on Polwhele's "Unsex'd Females" and thought that you might want to wade in, given the centrality of Wollstonecraft to the poem. No rush; it's not ready for prime time. But whenever you have a chance. And feel free to edit the draft, if you like. — scribblingwoman 23:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
| I see you don't have this flavor of barnstar yet... now you do. I award you this Copyeditor's Barnstar for your thorough and keen reviews of Johannes Kepler and History of biology. ragesoss 10:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC) |
new section
I didn't have the heart to post this to the "History of biology" FAC, on the subject of cheap opposes, and following your comments:
It is worth keystrokes. Awadewit is correct, and she puts what I've been trying to express for a long time quite nicely: "opposing" on the basis of any tiny perceived deficiency is aggressive, and I for one read into such opposes an attitude lacking in consideration or insight ("I've been here longer than you"—touche). Such comments are an affront to FAC submitters who come here expecting some "meat" to accompany any "object".
Grrr! Outriggr mad! –Outriggr § 05:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. I was worried that I had overreacted (which I probably did), but I really did think that the oppose and response were silly and, frankly, somewhat offensive. Awadewit 05:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007
The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 18:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't bother
Samsara and friends do their own thing. For the best experience here it is best to take such comments with a pinch of salt. It's a shame since the contributions from that user are of a very high standard, possibly jaded from fighting vandals? Any way, just a note to say you're not the only one and a reminder to have fun here too :) David D. (Talk) 05:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Funny how he told me not to be nasty and insulting but said that that was precisely his intention there on the talk page. Awadewit 06:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's also why you can't take any of his comments seriously. My guess is we all end up that way. :( Wikipedia corrupts your character like Tolkiens one ring. Remember that when you start getting cranky :) David D. (Talk) 06:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I tried waiting an hour before sending my reply. I think I should have waited a day. Or perhaps I should have journeyed to Mount Doom and back. Awadewit 06:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, I do think it is always worth taking a stand otherwise how will users know they have become like Gollum? But never take it personally, life is too short (and by the time you get back from Mt Doom you'll have forgotten what you wanted to say). David D. (Talk) 07:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I tried waiting an hour before sending my reply. I think I should have waited a day. Or perhaps I should have journeyed to Mount Doom and back. Awadewit 06:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's also why you can't take any of his comments seriously. My guess is we all end up that way. :( Wikipedia corrupts your character like Tolkiens one ring. Remember that when you start getting cranky :) David D. (Talk) 06:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, fellow Columbian. I just created a WikiProject dedicated to Columbia University, the schools, environs, and the notable people who notably affiliated with it. If you want to be part of it, please check out WP:Columbia. It is very barebones right now, but with your help we can expand it and make it fully functional. --Valley2city₪‽ 07:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for peer review! :)
Hi Awadewit,
I foolishly wasn't "watch"ing the peer review of equipartition theorem, so I noticed your excellent peer review only just now — thanks! It's funny and horrific at the same time how you can read your own arcane article a zillion times with utter belief in its charm and accessibility, and never appreciate its strangeness and inscrutability for oceans of people. I re-read equipartition just after reading your review, and I was, like, "O.M.G. What was I thinking?" I'm very lucky to have a wonderful reviewer like you, who opens my eyes. :) Willow 17:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I love your librarian picture in the upper right; a dusty demi-god for hard-working Ph.D. students? He seems more rumpled and avuncular than other scholarly spirits, although my favorite is still Catherine. :) Good luck with all your own scholarship, and thank you again for taking the time to help with equipartition, Willow 17:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Pre-emptive sunshine
Hi Awadewit,
I just realized that your article, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, is on the Main Page today, and I thought you might enjoy something happy to look at as you approach the precipice of madness. I remember how I freaked out when Enzyme got vandalized 300 times in one day, but my friends worked me down from my panic and helped me see the whole episode in a larger and better light. If you feel like you'd like to talk sometime today, I'll be around. :) Good luck, Willow 02:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I am no longer a main page virgin. Mary Wollstonecraft appeared on the main page a couple of months ago. It was horrifying to watch the page blanked continually and "bitch" and "lesbian" appear all over the article. I am of the crowd that thinks the main featured article should be protected in some way. After that experience, I could see no reason not to. Nothing of value was added to the article during the whole process. In fact, I can't remember if anything was changed at all. I am going to try to stay away this time and clean up the mess tomorrow. Otherwise, I will just relentlessly click refresh all day instead of read about Locke (which is what I should be doing). Awadewit 04:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
There's an old tale of Socrates walking past an execution, do you know it? He got quite mad at himself because he couldn't avert his eyes from watching a man die, for all his reasonings and life experiences. It's natural that Locke should wait another day for you to look after the article you worked so hard on. :) I think you're doing a wonderful job here, and wish you well-earned serenity tonight, Willow 22:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that I'm Socrates today. I've been looking at the page. I just couldn't help myself, despite the illogic of it. Where does that story come from? I don't know it. You are just a fount of all of kinds of great information. You must read very widely. I like that. :) Awadewit 22:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
How many days can one say, "Today, I'm Socrates" — it's a blessed life, no, for all of its hair-pulling moments? ;)
Time for true confessions, and I hope you won't like me less for it. I'm not widely read, but an affectionate listener; I dote upon my friends and I gather up their stories the way a cat laps milk. That particular story came from a dear friend, recently passed away, a professor of ancient Greek, a tall gentleman with beautiful silver hair. A mutual friend introduced us, and he very kindly looked over my translations of Leibniz and Aristotle. Despite the nearly fourfold difference in our ages, he and his wife took me under their wings; we used to have dinner together, where they would introduce me to wonderful foods such as risottos and akvavit. Both of them were impeccably civilized, and they used to walk with one another like little lovebirds at twilight. When he died, she gave me some of his books; I looked for the Socrates story in them, but I haven't found it yet — and it was like losing him all over again. :( In my mind's eye, I can still see him telling me that story, and I can't help but smile through my tears. In his telling, Socrates beats his eyes, reproaching them for wanting to see something out of mere morbid curiosity; finally, he relents and stares, telling his eyes to feast themselves on the sight. I occasionally think of that story when I'm standing in the grocery checkout line, surrounded by tabloids. ;) I'll keep looking for the story, since I've no doubt that it's true and I'm terribly curious about its origins as well, Willow 08:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Some thoughts
Sorry about that. Please see my comment to you on the talk page. Talk:Some_Thoughts_Concerning_Education#Notes Thanks for all your hard work. I shouldn't have "jumped" in like that, and should have examined the article more closely. Again, sorry. Jeeny (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
When you have time, please, have a look at the article. I have asked from Ceoil to copy-edit it, and he is doing a great great job, but I think that your comments will be also very useful for further improvement. I'll be back in a week from a trip, so it is not somethin urgent, but I would appreciate any remarks from your part. Oh, have in mind that the last section ("Homage") is not yet reworked and rewritten by me. Cheers!--Yannismarou 20:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sure. I am also copyediting as I read. I hope that is acceptable. I thought that perhaps it would be better to do that than list all of the sentences that had prose issues since it is such a large article. I know a bit about WWII, so hopefully I can copyedit without destroying the accuracy of the page (as I have often seen happen on my own pages). Where do you want me to post my comments? Awadewit 21:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Conatus FAC
I believe Lacatosias and I have addressed all of your concerns. Is there anything left that precludes a "support" vote from you? -- Rmrfstar 22:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thoughts
Wow, I'm having a hard time fighting that vandalism. Even worse than normal. Quadzilla99 23:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's finals? Awadewit 00:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Also, I did notice that someone created an account specifically to erase my talk page the other day and then someone continuously vandalized the Mary Wollstonecraft page (another page I worked a lot on), but I don't know if those two incidents were related. I don't know if any of the vandalism on the main page today was related to any of that stuff, but it could well have been. I have not gotten into any major edit wars or fights that I believe would have caused such a reaction, but I guess you never know. Thanks for all of your hard work. Awadewit 00:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- That linking was giving me a headache, I couldn't figure it all out. I guess you did. Quadzilla99 00:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Uncle Tom's Cabin
Thanks again for the peer review of Uncle Tom's Cabin. I've revised the article per your comments. Not only did I add the style section you recommended, I also added in a themes section (can't believe I'd forgotten to add that in before). Again, many thanks. --Alabamaboy 00:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm glad that I could help out. I have an article up for FAC. If you have the time, I would appreciate your thoughts on it - Mary Wollstonecraft's Original Stories from Real Life. Awadewit 01:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'll check it out (although I hope people like my comments on the book better than my comment about the novel template :-). I'm going to wait a few weeks then bring UTC up for FAC. Best, --Alabamaboy 01:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I decided to go ahead and bring the article up for a FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uncle Tom's Cabin. Best, --Alabamaboy 22:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'll check it out (although I hope people like my comments on the book better than my comment about the novel template :-). I'm going to wait a few weeks then bring UTC up for FAC. Best, --Alabamaboy 01:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Schlolarly sources
Sorry if this sounds a bit stupid, it might just be me, but how do I access these sources in full? The list you have provided on the James Bond FAC are books, so how do I access their text without having to buy them? I want to get GoldenEye to FA status, but your (vaild) point about a lack of a "theme"-type section means that I need to read sources like the ones you have suggested - • The Giant Puffin • 09:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- You do not have to buy them. If you live near a public university or a large public library, they will be available there. Some private universities will let you do research if you explain your purpose to them. Otherwise, you can request that your local library borrow the book from another library and then check it out to you - it's a wonderful thing called "interlibrary loan." The articles I mentioned and others like them are available through databases like MLA, JSTOR and Project MUSE. These would be available, again, at a large public library or at a public university (or a private university library, if you have access to one). The databases sometimes have the whole text of the article online and sometimes only references to the journal (then you have to go into the library stacks and get the article yourself). I do not know if local libraries have access to these databases - they are expensive (thousands of dollars a year). Google scholar is a good way to search for articles and books as well (you will get only references, though - you will have to go elsewhere for the actual materials). High school libraries (if you are in high school) do not usually have these databases or these kinds of books. A good reference librarian is a valuable resource. S/he can show you how to search for relevant materials. Let me know if you need any more help. I'm glad that you are willing to do the work to improve the article. Awadewit 09:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK thanks. I'll do some more research on Google Scholar to find some good references - • The Giant Puffin • 11:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Samuel Adams FAC
I have made the necessary corrections in regards to the dozens of comments you left on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Samuel Adams. Could you please look over the article again, and address any other lingering issues? If everything is in check, please re-consider your initial decision to oppose the FAC. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice that you're a frequent peer-reviewer, so I was wondering if you could review GoldenEye when you get a chance. Cliff smith 20:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, but I do give rather thorough reviews, so be sure that is what you want! Awadewit 21:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I think that your review would be most productive if you would help contribute directly, not simply say what needs what, if you know what I mean.
Cliff smith 17:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)- That is not what a peer review is; the whole point of peer review is for someone with fresh eyes to look at the article. Anyway, I'm not prepared to invest a lot of time in the Bond articles at this point. I would have to dig up all of my Bond research again, reread it as well as spend a few weeks at the library reading the new Bond criticism before I could contribute to the page, and I simply don't have the time for that right now, I'm afraid. Awadewit 17:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I think that your review would be most productive if you would help contribute directly, not simply say what needs what, if you know what I mean.
admins and reliable sources
In general, the admin role and the editor role are separate. There is almost never a situation where it would require someone acting in admin capacity to decide whether a source is reliable enough with respect to FA status or other quality certification; admin judgment on sources is generally limited to decisions about whether something meets the requirements of the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Generally, the only thing to get upset about with admins qua admins is their administrative actions (or general breach of civility, especially with new users). This seems less a case of lacking policy knowledge and more a case of suspect judgment; I can't imagine that nineteenth century sources are the most reliable when there have been at least five biographies within the last decade.--ragesoss 03:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that info. I am sure you know that it is often true that modern biographies rely heavily on 19c biographies. I have tried to act in good faith there. I don't know what else to do. I don't know the Adams historiography myself, so I can't dispute the biography business. I would assume that there are plenty of modern sources on Adams; it is just that they aren't strictly monograph biographies. Are you sure that there have been five biographies of Samuel Adams within the last decade? I didn't find them when I briefly looked around (might you be thinking of John Adams?). I only found biographies written for children. Could you tell me where you found those biographies, because if that is true, that is another reason to oppose the page. Thanks. Awadewit 04:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I know you're busy but would you mind copy-editing this article? I've worked hard to try and save it, see the before version:[1] It meets every criteria but 1a I believe. I had never worked on the article until a few days ago and am getting burned out on it, also you have a solid reputation as a copy-editor. Quadzilla99 21:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- To clarify it's on FARC, there haven't been any votes yet. Quadzilla99 21:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I might be more willing to do so if I felt that it was well-sourced. It appears that the two biographies of Thorpe listed in the "Further reading" aren't even used in the article itself. That makes me suspicious of the article's comprehensiveness and accuracy. I am also surprised that there is no discussion of race on the page. Was this never an issue during Thorpe's career? I find that hard to believe. I'll post over at the FARC. Awadewit 21:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I am perfectly willing to copyedit articles. I just want to make sure that they are relatively stable content-wise before I begin. Thanks. Awadewit 21:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Okay I responded in the FAR, like I stated this isn't a project of mine, just an article I came across last week and thought I'd try and save. To be clear those books appear to have been used in the writing of the article:[2] but I don't have access to them, so I just tried to do the best I could to source it. Quadzilla99 21:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- No way to tell that from the article's notes, unfortunately; perhaps they should be included in one single bibliography to indicate that. I'm surprised, though, because they would certainly have discussed race and that appears nowhere in the article. I look forward to working together another time. Awadewit 22:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Okay I responded in the FAR, like I stated this isn't a project of mine, just an article I came across last week and thought I'd try and save. To be clear those books appear to have been used in the writing of the article:[2] but I don't have access to them, so I just tried to do the best I could to source it. Quadzilla99 21:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I am perfectly willing to copyedit articles. I just want to make sure that they are relatively stable content-wise before I begin. Thanks. Awadewit 21:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I might be more willing to do so if I felt that it was well-sourced. It appears that the two biographies of Thorpe listed in the "Further reading" aren't even used in the article itself. That makes me suspicious of the article's comprehensiveness and accuracy. I am also surprised that there is no discussion of race on the page. Was this never an issue during Thorpe's career? I find that hard to believe. I'll post over at the FARC. Awadewit 21:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Some Thoughts, First Edition, image
I took the liberty of cropping out the rough edges, and straighted it, to make it neater in appearence for the article. I hope you don't mind. I thought it looked ugly, as it was before. :) - Jeeny -talk- 21:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. I didn't bother to do all of that. Awadewit 21:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, how do you straighten? I don't know how to do that. Awadewit 21:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I've been in advertizing, so I am very sensitive to presentation and layout. (although I don't know enough of the "language" or "code" to produce a layout, in my mind's eye, in this format.)