User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Reminder for P&P FAC

Copy-pasted from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial):

• Footnote 26 should be linked directly to the The Times, if possible, and the correct title of the article should be found.

This looks like a print source, and it says "Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission." Googling didn't help. How shall I proceed? – sgeureka ^t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm in a rush right now, but leave a note on my talk page to remind me and I'll look it up. Awadewit (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There are only minor bits left in the FAC but real-life stuff keeps me from devoting more than a few connected minutes for wikipedia at the moment. Should be better after Sunday again. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I checked for this citation at my library before I left for India and after an hour of searching I determined the search was better resumed when I returned! Awadewit (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

MW's library?

Hi Awadewit -- I was curious if a catalog of Mary Wollstonecraft's library has been published or, indeed, exists anywhere? On LibraryThing, there are a number of projects to post catalogs of historical figures' libraries. A MW catalog, or perhaps a Wollstonecraft/Godwin catalog, would be a fine addition, I think. (Hope you're doing well -- I've been out of pocket lately.) --Lquilter (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• As far as I know, there isn't such a thing. I don't think she had much of a library, being rather hard up for cash most of the time. That is a fascinating project, though. I wonder if "books MW read" or "had access to" would be the way to go. Godwin would, of course, be very fruitful. (I'm currently in Delhi, India - it is overwhelming, but amazing.) Awadewit (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• How fabulous! I'd love to visit India sometime ... I'll think about the Mary Wollstonecraft situation -- right now I think they mostly do personal ("owned") libraries. Godwin hasn't been done, btw. Some useful links for when you get a chance: list of legacy libraries ... discussion group for the project ... working wiki page -- my own schedule will continue to be a bit erratic, so apologies for inordinate delays in responding. Have a wonderful time. --Lquilter (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Science of the daemon

I stumbled upon this podcast about the philosophy and science of Frankenstein and thought you might be interested. I haven't listened yet, but it's on my list. Also, get better! Scartol • Tok 21:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it'll have to be a day or two. I'm really sick today. I don't know what I'm doing here at all.. =) Scartol • Tok 18:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. Sorry for the delay. Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul Gondjout

Hey Awadewit. Yes, I guess Gondjout is largely a translation of fr:Leon M'ba, but if you want to check the French sources, Bernault is on Google books, Keese is at its link, and I'm pretty sure User:Nishkid64 has checked this agains (or at least posesses) Biteghe. Regards ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please note it is the job of the editors of the article to check the sources. For example, I would never recommend that we nominate FHB without first checking all of the sources. That way, when someone asks us about it, we can say "yep, we know that all of the sources support all of the information". I don't think you can say that. If you cannot say that, you really should not have nominated the article. Awadewit (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yep, I'm almost positive that the sources back the claims, especially since almost (but a bit more from the French sources) the same is supported by Reed, Matthews, and Darlinglin (which I have at my fingertips now. You can perform a check if you wish, however. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Awa here, if you did not check the sources (at least one of the editors working on it I mean) then you should do so. It's a basic requirement, you can't depend on sources that no editor of the article has seen. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I thought my closing notes last time covered this matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Nishkid and I both ckecked the sources. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• But I thought you didn't speak French. Awadewit (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I can read a little. I don't speak it, and have to run most of it through a machiene translation, though I can usually use that to help translate bits. Nishkid, another major contributor, relied on native French speakers for some help. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion is being too fragmented - we really should keep it all at the FAC. Awadewit (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team new mission

Hi Awadewit, You've probably noticed that the FA-Team has just launched a mission to help WikiProject AP Biology 2008 and WikiProject North of the Rio Grande improve articles towards featured quality. As one of those in favour of such a mission, I'm hoping you would like to join in and support a few articles from one or both of the projects. If so, please add your name to the articles you are watchlisting on the mission page. Thanks, Geometry guy 19:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You cannot choose your battlefield... but you can plant a standard where a standard never flew

Stephen Crane is now Featured! Thanks so much for your wonderful help on such an important article -- if not for Wiki, then for me! I'm taking a break from substantial article writing so I can concentrate on classes, but my next project after this semester will most probably be something completely different; maybe another Wilderness Society bio? I may be an English lit major, but escapism keeps me sane. :) And now... María (habla conmigo) 12:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		To Awadewit, who personifies everything I admire in the world of academia and Wikipedia. More than several of my FAs to date have been enhanced by your insight and goodwill, for which I am very grateful. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to have your help on my next endeavor, whenever that will be. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll drop in at the PR later today. First I have to run upstairs and grab the pertinent books... María (habla conmigo) 15:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Milk comment

I want to know more about this discussion with the grad student. It is relevant to my interests. Care to sum up?

• You would have loved it, but it was a multi-hour, wide-ranging discussion. Summing up is difficult. Let me mull. Awadewit (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Bummer that I did miss it. You should have astroprojected to Florida to invite me to listen. Mull away. --Moni3 (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Scripts

Hi Awadewit, sorry I've been slow in getting back to you. The beginning of the semester has been pretty hard, what with grants and teaching and all that.

Since the Wikipedia seminar with the cell biologists is coming in December (less than 2 months away), I've started to think about how to make editing as easy as possible for them, using scripts. For practice, I've written a few basic scripts, and if you have time, I'd appreciate your feedback on them. There's information on how to install them on my user page. They (1) translate the interwiki links into English, (2) analyze the structure of articles, such as the amount of prose in each section, and (3) remove the hyperlinks from an article so that they can be heard spoken aloud using Fire Vox (a free Firefox add-on) or another screen reader. You might enjoy listening to Stephen Crane, which reads well in Fire Vox.

I'm still working on script (2) ("articlestructure.js"), so be warned that it may stop working from time to time. It's mainly for my research, but if you have any article properties you'd like to have analyzed, please don't hesitate to ask.

Longer-term, I'm interested in making scripts for accessibility and scripts that facilitate the writing and analysis of Featured Articles, perhaps even a WYSIWYG editor. I'd appreciate your suggestions for scripts, although I might not get to them quickly. Proteins (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for The Eclectic Review

On 22 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Eclectic Review, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

thx Victuallers (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

NRG

A, many thanks for this. I'm so pleased you're on board. NB I'm thinking that this may become our new El Señor Presidente, and this our new Mfreud. A little encouragement in that direction could go a long way... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup! Thank you and bon courage! Geometry guy 18:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

And many, many thanks for this. Much appreciated! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit! Thanks again for your advice on our article Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories. We appreciate that you treated our article as FA bound, as this is our ultimate goal (although we still have a ways to go). We've gone through your advice on our talk page and fixed up a few things in our article. If you have the time, we would appreciate a second round to see if we're headed in the right direction. Please keep in mind that we are still trying to paraphrase some quotations (mainly in our Style and Reception sections), and now that we are up to date on the suggested edits we are going to plunge forward into adding more raw material to the article. Thanks for all your help! Our GA nomination for our class is due on Monday...wish us luck! --Katie322 (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

—

Get it? It's an EM dash. HA! I doubt seriously that I could get into an article about Emily Post. I got no manners, and I ain't be likin' people who done told me to act right in society. (spit) Seriously, though, I'm going to focus on HdB for a while. Sadly, the anxiety of getting books back to the library is annoying me lately. I'm sure I'll get drawn into someone or something else soon enough, but for now it's just me and Honoré. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 12:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've got to go renew online! Rushing to click! Awadewit (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, should I invite Filll again, for recording? Scartol • Tok 12:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think so - I still haven't learned how to do that and I have no time to fiddle with that stuff right now. Awadewit (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've set up the page for the next podcast. See you there! Scartol • Tok 12:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Our town square. Awadewit (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the lovely barnfist. What a lovely thing to find after a day of cleaning out the ol' raingutters. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 19:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I should be able to get to the striking tomorrow. Scartol • Tok 01:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Keyser's Ridge – Cumberland, Maryland)

...did you explicitly Oppose? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 16:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yes - my oppose is still there. Awadewit (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• I see. There are several statements inserted between your Oppose and your sig. OK, thanks. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 17:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Mary Shelly TFA

I think I'm going to use Treehouse of Horror for Halloween (Scorpion asked me in IRC for that date). How about October 30 or Nov 1 instead? Raul654 (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

October 30 sounds good. Awadewit (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Does this affect Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#November 23? –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. The complicated politics of TFA. :) Nothing is light-hearted and fun. If Shelley doesn't appear, that is fine with me. Awadewit (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit to my last edit: I originally posted the wrong link. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Rhinemaidens notes and refs

I think Peter and I have dealt with the points you raised - if you have a moment please take a look. Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Revisited. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Red River Trails

Thank you for your very careful review of this article.

I have placed two questions about conventions for foreign words at the FAC.

I agree that the article was overlinked, but perhaps subnational places (rivers, states, provinces) should be linked. While I have no strong feelings about most of these, at a minimum I'd like to restore Des Moines River; my map does not show it and someone with questions about the route described could easily go to the linked article on the river and picture the route.

Finally, should locusts be linked? I suspect many people do not know they are grasshoppers. Kablammo (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• I delinked Des Moines River because it was linked in the previous paragraph, the one beginning "The rich fur areas along the upper Mississippi, Minnesota, Des Moines, and Missouri Rivers". Such repetition of links is generally avoided, since it makes it difficult to sort out the important links in an article.

• As to locusts, didn't everyone read Little House on the Prairie? This seemed like an obvious link to me, but perhaps that is because I grew up on the prairie. Perhaps we should ask someone with no prairie knowledge. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't, I did too. I was thinking more of plagues. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank your for your generous help and suggestions on this article.

As Huck Finn said:

all over … was the ignorantest kind of words and pictures made with charcoal.

Regards, Kablammo (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Rhinemaidens saga

Thanks for your untiring efforts to get things right. You will see from the FAC page that I have discovered how to get the entry name into the Randel source, and I believe that really does wrap that one up. I note your aversion to templates, probably well justified, but it doesn't help when editors (e.g. me) don't use them properly. Brianboulton (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• The quest for the perfect citation, eh? Awadewit (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Vollendet das ewige Werke! The Rhine daughters have a new gold toy. Thanks, again, for your patient reviewing, and for sorting out the troubling image. Today, assuming the PR is still open, I intend to return to Reception history of Jane Austen, as I have a few (very few) comments about this excellent article. Brianboulton (talk) 10:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC Batman (1989 film)

I have addressed some, but not all of your statements. The entire "[[WP:RS|reliable sources fiasco" has been finished. I just simply deleted the info you and the other editors found unreliable. The "duel of the freak" photo suggestion is complete (go check it out if you want and see if it's okay with you). I hope you don't mind, but I stroke out some of the comments which I have already addressed. I am very honest about striking out other comments.

In closing, I will get to work on the other stuff, but I think [[Image:Burtonjoke.jpg]] is very encyclopedic. Cheers. Wildroot (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just a quick note - please do not strike out my comments. You may feel you have dealt with them adequately, but that is really for me to decide. Awadewit (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Noted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to strike them out. I didn't think it was that big of a deal, but that's just me, and it probably wasn't very nice of me. =) Anyway, you said the reaction section "does not convey what critics thought about the film". Yes, I don't use any actual quotes from critics, but the other editors (some of them are talented WikiProjectEditors and lead coordinators) agreed that since the film came out in 1989, it is not really useful to include the five reviewers in the "Top Critics" Rotten Tomatoes page for Batman. Besides that, there's already two paragraphs discussing what critics thought. I guess I could add reviewers from Rotten Tomatoes, but it wouldn't be that much. Wildroot (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please keep all discussion related to this FAC and the article at the FAC page. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

All I need to finish addressing from your concerns it the overlinking, copyediting and the lead/intro. It would be nice if you can give your response about what I said about Burton's Joker concept art. Cheers. Wildroot (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

How do you withdraw an article? I'm just going to do that. Wildroot (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You request it on the FAC page or on my talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

image headache (major depressive disorder)

Hi, I hope you had a nice holiday, I have major depressive disorder at FAC here - slight issue with a couple of images WRT usage. i.e. people who died over 75 years ago but the source of the image is not clear. Sandy pointed me in your direction as ElCobbola hasn't edited in a few days. Read and comment on the article if you like but it is longish...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've just done the images, as I am rather pressed for time right now. Awadewit (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry. I just saw the call for Awadewit when I went through the FAC, commented on images and tweaked some. Maybe this will free her up a bit. --Moni3 (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for the image help; the entire FAC page was stalled over images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Elcobbola hasn't edited since the 23rd.  :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit, if you have a chance over the next few days, I don't think anyone has evaluated the images at Netley Abbey. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

ABD at Amazing Stories

I know you keep a pretty good eye on your watchlist, but I thought I'd let you know that I think I've responded to all your points at the talk page. The only remaining item is to read Eric's dissertation and see if it has anything I can use. That won't be tonight, though. Thanks again for the detailed notes. Mike Christie (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've responded and sent you another email response that I received from the SF listserv. Awadewit (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

History of a Six Weeks' Tour

Hi Awadewit, congratulations on getting History of a Six Weeks' Tour to FA. I'm really sorry that I did not have a chance to take a look at it before it went to FAC. Real life has been crazy busy the last few weeks and still not quite back to normal. Next time, I will try to be more responsive. Karanacs (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• No worries at all. Awadewit (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe you only have one of these.

		The Literary Barnstar
		For not only sculpting, refining, and polishing articles of stupendous quality about writers, writing, and the written, but also for showing the rest of us The Way, I award you this symbol of recognition. May your gifted virtual pen continue to fill Wikipedia with work of the highest caliber for eons to come. Scartol • Tok 16:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

And congrats on the TFA. Scartol • Tok 03:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Image Guide at FA

What do you think of writing a guide to images at FA that could be used by prospective nominators? Something simpler than the numerous image instruction pages? Those pages don't make a lot of sense to me — I learned by doing, asking, and messing up. I find myself giving instructions a lot to various editors who find included images not up to snuff. --Moni3 (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• You mean, something different than the Dispatch on non-free images and the Dispatch on free images? Awadewit (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Even simpler than that, but references that. Something that in a skeletal form looks like this. Accurate, linking to the actual policies. I've copied and pasted the permissions statement to so many people so many times I just went ahead and put it on my user page for quick use now. --Moni3 (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see. I think that is a good idea. I was thinking we should do a podcast on images, too. :) Awadewit (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Dispatches are really lagging, and I'm going to give up if we don't get more folks writing there ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

We have covered the major topics at this point, right? Is there any glaring omission? Awadewit (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think all of the other featured content areas and content review areas could have more indepth coverage, similar to featured articles, but in spite of me dragging those people in to write Dispatches, they don't seem interested. I still have many Dispatches I could write, but 1) my prose stinks and 2) the idea wasn't for FA to dominate. I've got many on the backburner, but don't want to take over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If you write, I will copyedit. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It may come down to that :-) But with Elcobbola missing, I'm worried about the allocation of your time: writing, reviewing, copyediting, and image checking ... a big load already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Think of it as a standing offer. Awadewit (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, A; I have a lot of them written in my head, but want to wait and see if other content areas will take some slots. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Review request

Would it be possible amid your many activities for you to look at this new Mozart article which is now on peer review: Mozart family Grand Tour/archive 1? It's part musical, part European travelogue. Any comments that you leave, and any problems over the images, will be very much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds intriguing! Will do. Awadewit (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Citing Eric Drown

There are a couple of things I'd like to cite from Eric Drown's thesis, and I was wondering if you could give me some guidance on how to cite from it. It's a graduate thesis, "submitted to the faculty of the graduate school of the University of Minnesota" in December 2001. There is a UMI number, presumably a University Microfilms International number, which I would think is sufficient to identify the text and allow a reader to find it and verify any references. I don't see a "Published by", presumably because it was not published, just microfilmed. Is this a reliable source, and what citation format should I use for it?

In fact what I want to cite so far are things that don't depend on Drown directly, but on things he mentions which I don't have other good references for. He's only a good source for that if his dissertation is a clearly reliable source, so that's a key point. Any help would be appreciated -- thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've now finished scanning his dissertation (I couldn't read it all thoroughly -- it's almost 300 pages). I only found one thing that I wanted to cite that I didn't have other sources for, and I was able to locate references on the web that would do what I needed, so I no longer need to be able to cite the dissertation. However, there was other material that would be useful for other articles -- probably for Hugo Gernsback, and perhaps others -- so if you have a moment to give me advice on the citation format that would still be useful. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Which citation style are you using? Awadewit (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sparknotes and shmoop?

To Kill a Mockingbird had an EL to www.shmoop.com, which appears to be similar to sparknotes. I removed it per WP:ELNO #1, and the editor who inserted it emailed me. Is there somewhere written that sparknotes and review sites shouldn't be included in FA Novels? --Moni3 (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• There is nowhere that says that explicitly, but those sites are horribly unreliable and usually sell material (even more reasons not to include them). Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings

Awadewit, sorry it's taken me so long, but thanks for your 10/21 edit of this article. It is much, much appreciated. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• How is the copyediting going? Do you still need a copyeditor? Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit

As you know RCC failed FAC again and Sandy asked us to address some issues that she listed on my talk page. One of her recommendations was to ask you and JBMurray to participate. I would be very happy to have your help in the next peer review which we will initiate in a few weeks after we sort out some FAC etiquette problems. If you are not interested I understand, I'm sorry for past harsh words and I hope that in the future we could work together on this or other interesting projects. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 03:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• I might have some time over Thanksgiving, before finals. I was wondering if you would be willing to come on a podcast about controversial articles that Scartol and I are planning. We want to chat with editors who have been in the thick of things, show the rest of the wiki-community how tough it is, and offer some solutions. Would you be up for that sort of thing? Awadewit (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course I am willing to help. I did not know there were such things taking place on Wikipedia, I hope it helps improve things when you are done. My first recommendation would be have some sort of rule that only the nominator may answer an opposer on the FAC page. If anyone else wants to carry on a discussion, they should go to the talk page of the person they want to have that discussion with, not on the FAC page. NancyHeise ^talk 03:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You know, that's not a bad idea, but I'm not totally in favor of it either. I think i'd be more in favor of if the nominator asks someone to stop responding on the FAC, then they should stop, rather than a blanket prohibition. Sometimes it's useful for someone to step in and answer someone else's query/concern, such as with "I oppose because it doesn't have images", when anyone can point out that images aren't a requirement. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that's not a bad way to do it but the problem with it is that there are harsh feelings involved for the person who gets asked not to respond. Some of these people, you have to remember, are not always mature adults. Some of them are often teenagers and we are supposed to be encouraging their participation on Wikipedia knowing that they do not always posess the perfect communication skills that we all wish we had. I am not suggesting that anyone commenting at RCC is a teenager but honestly, I don't really know one way or the other. I just like to be careful just in case. NancyHeise ^talk 04:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, thanks so much for your enthusiasm. Here is the page where we are organizing. Awadewit (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I signed up for the only time that I know I can be available. I have never participated in one of these before so I am not sure how they work. NancyHeise ^talk 03:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We use Skype. It is available for Windows, Mac, and Linux. Here are some hints regarding Skypechats. If you have any security concerns, let me know. Awadewit (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I am not a computer whiz but I am married to one! My husband and I have had meetings with others via our computer but I am not sure how he set it up. I will ask him to help me connect to this meeting - I just need to know what day and time. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 19:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

We're still working on selecting the time. Awadewit (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

podcast is live :-)

Thanks heaps for recording another podcast, guys! Here it is!- I've only listened to the first section thus far, and am enjoying it enormously :-) - you're 'live' on the community portal now, and I'll be uploading your recording to iTunes when I get the chance (apologies for the inevitable delays on this bit) - once again thanks for taking the time to record this, and I look forward to many more! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for all of your help, PM! We're organizing the next one now - on controversial articles. Awadewit (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Shakespeare notice

There is currently a discussion going on regarding the project's policy on how information on characters should be represented in articles on Shakespeare's plays. Please take part by clicking Talk:Romeo and Juliet#Character Analysis. Further context, if needed, can be found by scanning the two previous talk sections on the page as well. Sent by §hepBot (Disable) at 04:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC) per request of Wrad (talk)

Image:Isabelle de Montolieu.jpg

Some information added Sapcal22 (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you very much - image has been added to Reception history of Jane Austen. Awadewit (talk) 05:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Reception history of Jane Austen

Sorry to have been a bit of a pain on the peer review on Reception history of Jane Austen - I appreciate your willingness to listen to my little nit-picking. I want to be clear though: I never had a problem with the word pilgrimage itself, so don't feel the need to clarify that. I was just concerned that the article never made the connection to the Jane Austen Centre as a place of pilgrimage. Anyway, thanks for trying nonetheless! --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Would it help if the caption described more about the Centre? Awadewit (talk) 05:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't help with my concern but it's pretty negligible at this point. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Image query

On the Mozart family Grand Tour peer review you queried the de Carmontelle watercolour which may or may not have been scanned from Solomon's book. Well, what about this, a slightly cropped version which I scanned myself from Jane Glover's book? With your Elcobbola hat on, does this pass muster? If so I'l put it in. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. Awadewit (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Re. Copyediting extra credit assignment?

(copied over from my talk page:) I think that's a marvellous idea! My only suggestion would be that they also drop a note on the talk page to explain what they're doing: that way, too, a bit of solidarity might emerge! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Workshop

I'd thought that we'd start people off on writing about their specialist subjects since, as you know, getting academics to write about their pet projects is the path of least resistance! Tim Vickers (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• It is, of course, also the topic people are most invested in and the thing, at times, that they have the least distance from. :) Awadewit (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

NRG image question

O mighty image expert, could you let me know what needs to be done with this? I am doing the GA review of Julia Alvarez and saw the tag; I've never had to deal with images where permission is obtained so I'm not sure of the right next step. Thanks for any help. Mike Christie (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This image needs an OTRS ticket from the copyright holder, which is presumably the photographer. See WP:COPYREQ for instructions and WP:ERP for sample letters. Awadewit (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much; I've passed this along. Mike Christie (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi awadewit

• Thanks for trying to persuade others that I am not wholly and irredeemably a bastard. :-) Those "Ling's a bastard" folks should call my ex-stepmother. Now she could win an argument on this topic!
• Please see my remarks regarding Revisiting Wikipedia:Featured short articles. Please know that I automatically Support if they can find enough committed reviewers.
• Thanks!
• Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I was originally against this idea, but perhaps this is the compromise I will have to accept. I just worry it will become a ghetto. Awadewit (talk) 05:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Tom Crean (explorer) featured article

Thanks for your support for the above recent FAC and useful comments. This is my co-nom User:Zatoichi26's first FA; he did most of the hard work. Brianboulton (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

NRG question

Am I imagining it, or are the NRG articles in worse shape than the MMM articles were at GA nomination time? If I understand the program correctly, Jon has given the students a deadline for GA nomination; did he do that for MMM? If not, perhaps the deadline is pushing the students into nominating early. My review for Julia Alvarez was long, and the one for José Martí has taken two or three hours already and is going to be enormous; I'm only a third of the way through. I think some of the articles would fail GA from reviewers who were not involved with the project. I'm OK with working with the students on an extensive GA review, since the alternative is just to do exactly the same review prior to the GA nomination. But I wonder if this is quite what Jon intended to happen when he set a GA nomination deadline.

I went back and looked at the GA reviews I did for Domingo Faustino Sarmiento and Gabriel García Márquez, to compare, and I did find multiple prose issues there, but there were definitely less of them.

I posted here rather than to Jon's page because I don't want to embarrass the students; I know Jon watchlists your page and I am sure other NRG editors do too. Anyway, what do you think? Mike Christie (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Mike, you are not wrong in your impression that the articles are worse. My reviews have taken hours. I do not know why there is such a difference. Having taught for a few years now, though, I can tell you that sometimes a project works out better with one group of students than with another and sometimes the reason why that is the case is just a mystery. However, let me speculate away. :)
• I know why Jbmurray added the deadline: deadlines like that push students to do work earlier in the semester (do you remember the nightmarish push at the end of the semester towards GAN and FAC for MMM?). However, I wonder if he should have added something like "only nominate if a Wikipedian thinks it is ready" or something. While GAN has lower standards than FAC, I would not have recommended that some of these articles be nominated quite yet. Jbmurray's problem is trying to get the students to work early in the semester - what is the best way to do that? Without the deadline, we were all scrambling; with this version of the deadline, we are reviewing articles that are clearly unready.
• I think that Jbmurray probably altered the way he taught the project and perhaps some of those alterations didn't turn out the way he had hoped. For example, I think he must have focused on sourcing, because there are large numbers of quotations in all of the articles, but the quotations are making it difficult to craft well-written sections.
• Another thing that I have noticed is that there is much less interaction with the editors of the articles. One thing that I enjoyed so much about the MMM project was working together with the students. I have no sense of who the NRG editors are or what they are doing on the articles I have reviewed. I feel like I am talking into a bit of a void. I'm wondering if this is part of the problem. I've done initial reviews of some of these articles but instead of discussing the changes made by the students, for example, they just ticked off things on my list with little check marks. We didn't develop a sense of "wiki togetherness". I felt more like one-time reviewer than an involved editor. The evolution of the articles seems much less organic to me - much less a result of ongoing conversations about what makes a good encyclopedia article. I have no idea what these students think they are writing, for example. An "encyclopedia article" is a difficult genre to write in and during MMM I spent a lot of time discussing who we are writing for and how to structure the article for that reader. Here I have barely been able to do that at all.
• I agree that other editors would have failed the articles outright (I probably would have). I actually had to think a long time about putting them on hold (you know my high standards!), but I thought nothing was to be lost from putting the article on hold and seeing what improvements could be made in a week. Students who are motivated by a grade often take the time to make enormous improvements in their written work (I've seen extraordinary improvement in my writing courses). However, the ultimate pass/fail decision is not one I look forward to making. Awadewit (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Heya. Yes, I agree with both of you. I'm a little surprised as to how things are working out, and am not sure if it's a result of the changes I've made or (as Awadewit says) the fact that things may differ from class to class based on a score of unfathomable factors. Some notes...

• Yes, I pushed the deadline up, and also emphasized that it was a deadline for GA. As it happens, I'm not sure we're going to be able to continue on to FAC with any of these articles. The by-product may be that the project ends rather earlier this year.
• Another innovation was to get them to write up a plan and bibliography (the latter, graded) early in the semester. Yes, I have emphasized sourcing, as an observation last year was that it took some time for students to realize the importance of good sources. But here, too, in some cases it has taken some time.
• And at the same time, yes, for some reason the students have taken to copious quotation... and often left things there.
• I'm interested in what Awadewit says about the lack of interaction. I'm not sure how to explain that. For what it's worth, the atmosphere in the class itself has been very good, perhaps better than in MMM.
  • Perhaps it's that I shouldn't have introduced them to the {{done}} template? Heh. They seem to have taken to it rather too eagerly... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• I recognize that some of these article have not been ready for GAN. I very much appreciate the time you guys are taking on the reviews. You should, however, of course feel free to quick-fail them. I have tried to point out to students that this is in many cases a possibility.
• I wonder about the fact that this semester we don't have an obvious trail-blazer, as El Señor Presidente was last time, so that students have some idea of what to expect. (I thought that WHC would take that role, but it hasn't really.)
• I wonder also whether there's something about the fact that the FA-Team, too, has still yet to re-gel.
• Did such success last time make me too confident this time?
• Another thing I think is that last time, FA-Team members were not quite so involved in the GA Review process. And articles tended to wait on the GA queue rather longer. In lots of ways, it's great that things are different this time; but it's a rather different model.

So in the end, I don't know. I do apologize for the time this is taking for you guys. And of course you should in no way consider that you have to do anything. In the end, if only half, or none, of the articles become GA, the students have still learned plenty, and Wikipedia has some better articles. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't apologize, Jon; this is volunteer work for us, really. I would like to figure out how to improve the process, of course. I don't think you're relying on the FA team, are you? That is, if we stopped completely, the students would still have guidance from you and could still work on improving the articles; the GA reviews would happen as part of the normal GA process. I wonder if it would have been better if we'd held off a bit longer, until the articles had passed (or in some cases failed) GA. We did have a certain amount of chemistry going on last time that doesn't seem to have happened as much this time, at least not on the articles I've worked on.

Heh. Indeed, I was rather wary about involving the FA-Team again, not wanting to drain resources... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

José Martí is an interesting example because I think it could make FA, and it would be a relatively high importance article. The prose is just awful, and the organization needs serious work, but the students have put in an immense amount of sourced information. The right next step would be a talk page discussion about article organization. I think I'm going to cut short the GA review, put it on hold with a comment to the effect that the sort of thing I've commented on in the first half of the article remains an issue throughout the article, and suggest that the group work on organization, either on the talk page or among themselves, but that if they do so on the talk page I can help. The problem with a detailed review is that I wonder if the students get the idea that by religiously going down the list and fixing everything they will have a great article. What led to the FAs last time was at least one student getting a really clear conception in their head of what the article ought to look like, and working on-Wiki to make it look that way. Mike Christie (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes the detailed reviews do more harm than good, I think. This happens with my students' papers, too. Sometimes it is best not to comment on individual sentences because then students ignore the "global revisions" (the hard part). I tend to cross out entire paragraphs in written work to encourage students to really revise. Awadewit (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that's right. And I should add that I think your bullet list above is spot on; thank you for concisely articulating what I'd been vaguely thinking.

I've cut short the Martí review as I said above; we'll see how the students respond. Do you think that perhaps the right approach would be for the FA team to only get involved (a) with conversations on the article talk page, including sample correction edits and short lists of example problems, but not detailed reviews, or (b) articles at GAN whichand can reasonably easily be pushed over the line, or (c) articles that have reached is GA and which the students want to get to FA? Those are three ways we can help. We don't add any special skills to the weak GA nominations, or to articles where we're not interacting with the students. Mike Christie (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) Some more reflection is going to be required, certainly on my part, after this second iteration. I'll try to organize it a little more pro-actively this time. At present, the plan is still to have a third iteration next semester, though I'm beginning to wonder about that just now. (Not least, because the process is rather exhausting for me! Though I may have more support next semester... and in any case, I'll be teaching half the amount I'm teaching this semester, which has proved much busier than expected. I'm not entirely sure what bearing that has, either.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Image sources

I don't see that it is necessary, though of course desirable, for PD-art images to include the source of the image, since this cannot affect the status of the image following [1] and [2], the Commons policies. Really it is more important that the owner of the image is recorded than the website or book it was taken from. In 999/1000 cases the image will be a version, through various reproductive processes, of the museum's original image. Johnbod (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Dishearteningness

Sorry. I have (partly) come round to your way of thinking since the last debate. I think your proposed wording might be workable, and I'll try to be look for constructive ways to move on. I don't think notability is the way to go, though, and I think it is distracting the conversation from your proposed change to WIAFA. Thanks for having another, reasoned, attempt at solving this. Mike Christie (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it wasn't my intention to be disheartening either; I just think notability is a bottomless pit that could suck the life out of the discussion, and I'm glad we've moved away from it. Yomangani^talk 01:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a distraction, I hope it will stay focused this time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

G'day :-)

Hi awa - it's great that you're organising another content podcast - you probably don't need to worry too much about much more than just getting the thing recorded - I (or someone else I'm sure) will be happy to help upload / publish it as soon as it's done :-)

and while I'm here... have you considered sticking your hand up to help out with arbcom? - someone as skilled at content building, and disinterested in 'drahmaz', as you would, I think, be a wonderful addition, and I actually think you'd have an incredibly positive impact culturally. I've already pestered User:Casliber, and thought I'd mention it to you too :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I have no time - the dissertation calls. Awadewit (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 64

Hello! Good news, Wikipedia Weekly Episode 64 has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Dispatch

Here I am already: Wikipedia:FCDW/October 27, 2008. The "story" is on the talk page there, but it never got written. Needs help. Durova was slotted to do a featured sounds piece, but that didn't get done, so here I am. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Darn it. No clue. User talk:Elcobbola. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No clue here either. I've been up to my neck in the Archbishop of Canterbury list which is at FLC review... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What happened with Elcobbola? That was pretty surprising. --Moni3 (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I know image review is very hard, and discouraging, work. <sigh> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I pitched in in a couple of articles when you asked on the FAC talk page and I know Awadewit was helping. Most of what I've learned I've done so by trial and error, which is really difficult when the editors I've learned from have had different interpretations and understandings of the policies. I can try, and I think I know most of the image upload issues for FAC, but even I don't have a lot of faith in my abilities if I get a problem that takes some pondering. --Moni3 (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Elcobbola was a one of a kind. This will stretch you and Awadewit even thinner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what happened. I hope he is ok. Awadewit (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Because of the length of the Depression FAC, I capped your image review: please revert if that's not OK with you.[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have no problem with capping (I just thought we weren't supposed to do it for some reason). Awadewit (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Art Deco

Hi there. I see that you are listed under the arts section on the peer review volunteer page. Is there any chance you could review the Art Deco article? I'd like to list it for GA once I've addressed the article's concerns. Would you be able to help? Elucidate ^{(light up)} 18:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'll see what I can do in the next few days. Awadewit (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Podcast check-in

So it looks like Saturday is a good pick for the podcast. I just wanted to make sure that this week – the 8th – works for you? 3PM EST was the proposal, so if you and Moni are okay with it, let's plan to make that happen. Scartol • Tok 23:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'll be there. Filll will help us record, too. Awadewit (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Depressed

(shuffles feet; looks at ground) Erm...this one is somewhat akin to white water rafting, I have been trying to fix things left, right and centre, so sorry if I sounded flippant, but yes I would ve grateful for a few lines on Wollstonecraft would go well betweixt Coleridge and Johnson. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've added some notes to the talk page on both Wollstonecraft and Shelley. Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• (belatedly) Cool, I finally got round to adding Shelley, which slotted nicely into article as circumstances concering diagnosis are the same for all three. There is a paper by a psychoanalyst which looks interesting too on his interpretation of Frankenstein WRT loss issues of Shelley. I might email him :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Polar Medal award

It was very kind of you to award me the Polar Medal, which places me in very august company. It was most timely, too, because today, 7 November, is the first anniversary of my Wikipedia editing (apart from a few earlier IP experiments). This was my first posting of an article, on 7 November 2007. Please note my strict adherence to article structure and WP:MOS, my scrupulous attention to in-line citations and listing of sources, and my careful selection of images. Anyway, thank you for your continuing support for these polar articles and for your constructive review comments. Brianboulton (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the Elcobbola award! That was wonderful! And, happy wiki-birthday! Awadewit (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You deserve a medal too

		The Elcobbola Image Reviewing Star
		Awarded to Awadewit, for rigorous yet supportive and sympathetic image reviewing, in the best traditions of Elcobbola. Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

Since the bulk of both your oppose and that of Steve's regarded more source, I've withdrawn the nomination at present until I can try and find the sources mentioned. In the meantime, however, I was wondering if you could look over the other comments. I've reworded and reorganized the elements as suggested; I also realized I hadn't added in information about the Kobayashi Maru in 'Themes', so with the new additions it should be more relevant in plot. You can just reply on the talk page of the article, I guess. Thanks for your review. (As to why there aren't more Star Trek FAs, it might be in part because the WikiProject seems to be dead.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way I'd like to take you up on your offer of looking through your university database. It seems like most of the sources that could be of some use are from Cinefantastique, American Cinematographer, and StarBurst, but I haven't been able to find anything searching through my school's library collections. Perhaps you might have better luck? Otherwise, to the painful process of interlibrary loan I go :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

We have the first two. Send me the specific list of the articles you want and I'll start getting them. Awadewit (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Happy dance* Thanks a bunch, I guess I owe you a beer or equivalent :) I've sent you a wikipedia email. I accidentally copied some other sources there too, just disregard them (I'm bad at copying and pasting.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit's "context" proposal

Would you consider weighing in on Awadewit's context proposal which has been rearranged by SandyGeorgia? It is at least a little step forward that perhaps could be agreed upon without a huge discussion. Or disagreed with, but keep the discussion going? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch interview

Per this discussion, I'm hoping you'll be interested in being interviewed for the Dispatch, to be published in the Signpost within a few weeks. I started a temp page at Wikipedia:FCDW/WBFAN. Usually, the format is that interviewees drop in some text and Tony1 or Jbmurray copyedit, but I suspect that we won't need copyediting and trimming here, so I see it as more of a pick and choose, narrowing down responses only if needed. The goal is to highlight your work, and to guide, inspire and motivate other writers. If you're interested, dig in ! If not, just leave a note on the talk page of that temp page and I'll remove you. I'll tentatively aim for the November 24th Signpost. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Image check

Hi Awadewit, listen, I've noticed that you check out the images in FAC nominations and I was hoping if you can do an image check on Maggie Gyllenhaal, an article I will be nominating for FAC in the mere future. I was advised to have someone check the images, so that a problem won't ensure during the article's nomination. I would appreciate if you can help out. If not, all is cool. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 04:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Mozart family Grand Tour

For your information, this article is now at FAC. I think I have resolved the background/context issue. I do appreciate your purposeful reviewing, even when we are disageement. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: William Blake

In respone to your message on my talk page. Firstly, yes, I'll be around to respond. The reason I nominated the article for GA status was because, quite simply, I believed at the time it to be of the required quality without my contribution (Does one need to contribute to an article to nominate it for GA status?). I will, incidentally, be working on the article in the future as well, but even without my working, the article is already extremely well written and accurate. The article is not yet of FA status, but with my help, I think it can reach that point eventually. - Jacjohncoles^{talk|contribs} 17:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just been burned in the past. I didn't want to spend several days reviewing an article that no one had any intention of working on. Awadewit (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Image check request

Hi, if you have time could you image check Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of premiers of the Northwest Territories? There are only two images. Gary King (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you do Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of premiers of New Brunswick when you've got time? There are a few dozen images, but I went through every one and there is a URL for each one that links to their source, with their copyright status on each page. They are all government pages. Gary King (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't. I've got too much other stuff to do. Awadewit (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright; got someone else I could bug? I've already contacted Fuchs. Gary King (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Everything's under control now. Thanks for your time! Gary King (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you let me know what issues are outstanding at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of premiers of Nova Scotia when you get the chance? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Because the Grinch is under copyright

Congratulations, Ebenezer. Durova^Charge! 03:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 65

Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 65: Censorship while you sleep has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Novels

Just some information (positive or negative in regards to your argument) that may hinder or help:

Defoe, and not dear Aphra, is normally used as the progenitor because his writing was closer to the hackwork which Pamela was responding to. Moll Flanders is used as a contrast to show what Pamela is (i.e. a book that attempts to create a psychologically real character). Sure, there were many "scribbler" books at the time, but most were still under the Romance genre, with Oronoko being somewhere in between.

During the Richardson Fielding dispute, there were a few females that contributed to the development of the novel (none of them really "novels" yet): Charlotte Lennox, Jane Collier, Sarah Scott, Sarah Fielding, etc. These are the names you know. Then comes Sterne with his travel parody (Sentimental Journey) and his.. um.. whatever you call it (Tristam Shandy). After that, we have the contributions of Humphrey Clinker and Evelina that come about, which tries to take Pamela but perfect its mistakes. Then we have some other writers like Edgeworth and Radcliffe appear. More attempts. Then we have two people in which the first novel is disputed between - dear Jane and Wally Scott.

So, dating these, you could cut "Augustan" off at Sterne, and possibly slide in Johnson. Aphra doesn't seem to fit the idea of Augustan. Lennox does. Collier does. Fielding does. Scott... I don't know. Thats just history and major authors. I can provide a list of some major "novel" critics if you need. But this list should help you find related pages or background if you need more info. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've read quite a bit on the history of the novel and I recognize this "rise of the novel" story. It is, of course, just one version of the "rise of the novel" narrative. As you are well aware there are many different ways to tell this narrative and different theoretical approaches do it differently. In both my undergraduate and graduate classes on the history of the eighteenth-century novel, for example, we read Oroonoko and we discussed what it meant to begin the "rise of the novel" narrative there or with Defoe. The fact is, there isn't agreement on this front. Beginning with Oroonoko takes one closer to the political satires of female amatory fiction writers. You know all of this, however. My point at the Augustan literature FAR is that a Wikipedia article must present the differing scholarly opinions on the matter to satisfy WP:NPOV, not just the view of the Wikipedia article writers. Awadewit (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha, yes. I was just listing the various major authors for your list when looking for any missing components. It will be a little confusing because it is "Augustan" literature and not, say, early 18th century. I don't like the idea of "Augustan" as a binding term, but I also tend to rebel against labels like "Romantic" (I prefer "Georgian" lol). A few other big names in the "novel" development business: Emile Legouis and Arthur Sherbo. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I've been developing a "modern" literary canon, because many people ask for a list of major works to read while they pursue advanced English Literature degrees. I created a partial list here. Fill free to fill in gaps at any time. The top list is for all the works by major periods and alphabetized. The bottom lists are for chronologies that focus only on the major or contributory works while ignoring the minor. I've been relying on Norton's list, Penguin and Oxford's book lists, and the old Cambridge Bibliography books. I'm not even close to finished, but I thought I might as well open it up to you in case you want something to relax with. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I have time right now - Byron awaits, you know! Awadewit (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Byron needs a verdict if Haiduc will be kept from edit warring and pushing the "Byron is a pederast and we need to include this idea as much as possible" on the Byron related pages. Sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)