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.

I have been negotiating for rights to use images composed by Karen Carr. She is a well-known international wildlife and natural history artist. Her husband just emailed me with the statement --- just pick one. I hope that will resolve the problem of the boring evolution tree that serves as our lead, replacing it with a far more captivating image. Her web site is [1] should you be interested in viewing her work. Once we have uploaded the image to Wiki Commons, perhaps you can assist with the placement of the image in the article itself. Thanks -- Random Replicator 12:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

On 14 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article F. H. Auld, 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.

---- ST47 Talk· Desk 18:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I only rewrote the hook. Awadewit | talk 18:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey! I renominated New York University for good article review having addressed all of your points. I'm just letting you know in case you feel like reviewing it again. If not, no worries! Thanks for your contributions. -- Noetic Sage 19:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I am rather busy at the moment, but good luck with the nomination! Awadewit | talk 21:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Main page errors should be listed at WP:ERRORS. I moved your comment (which I agree with) there, and hopefully an admin will make the change soon. Rigadoun (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I was directed to that page when I tried to edit the entry myself. Something should be done about that. Awadewit | talk 21:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you :) Hope you're doing well, Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 00:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! A thought briefly ran through my mind: to declare my candidacy for adminship solely for the purpose of fixing grammar errors on the main page. :) Awadewit | talk 01:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		Thank you for helping us to combat GAC backlog! OhanaUnited Talk page 01:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the most recent revision to Honoré de Balzac has been completed. Pursuant to JayHenry's insightful peer review, I found eight more books, revised the Style and Legacy sections in a big way, and revised the lead. If it's not ready for an FA nom, I'll eat my hat. (Note: I own a hat made out of dark chocolate.) Assuming you don't find anything in need of repair at this point, do you still wish to co-nominate it with me? Thanks as always for your support and guidance. —  Scartol ·  Talk 03:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if you could wait just a bit more? I managed to find someone else to review the article ( User:WillowW). She should be able to look at it soon. The article will be much the better for it, I assure you. In the meantime, you might want to look at

• User:Jengod/Some common objections to featured status and how to avoid them
• Wikipedia:The perfect article

If you don't want to wait, I understand. Let me know what you want to do. Awadewit | talk 03:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

While it's annoying to wait, it would be more annoying (x ∞) to get the nom failed due to stuff we could have fixed beforehand. I'll read the pages you suggest after school today (woo! Another crazy Friday night for me!) and practice the virtue of patience. Thanks for recruiting WillowW. We'll measure twice and cut once. Yes. Good. —  Scartol ·  Talk 11:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in the meantime you could review Letters Written in Sweden, Norway and Denmark? It hasn't garnered any peer reviews yet, unfortunately. If you don't have the time, that's fine, too. Awadewit | talk 17:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a look. I'll post a note here when I can. It may be tomorrow. —  Scartol ·  Talk 21:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I did a review. Please note that I'm still not sure about my worth as a peer-reviewer, but I did what I could. It's at the peer review place. —  Scartol ·  Talk 14:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I fixed the items WillowW suggested, and gave it another looking-over. I really think we're ready now. What do you think? – Scartol ·  Talk 22:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the cleanup. (I saw the lack of the word "of" in the newspaper editor sentence and when I went to fix it, you had already done so. Weird to be editing an article at the same time as someone else.) Are we ready to go then? Or is there anything else that needs doing? Scartol ·  Talk 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I finished the copy edit run through. I am now checking all of the links (it's not that I don't trust you!). I have one question: Samuel Rogers - is that the correct link and the year of publication of his book is wrong is that an incorrect link? Awadewit | talk 02:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Good grief! What am I, and idiot? It's a wrong link. The book was originally published in 1953. I don't know what I was thinking. Thanks for saving me a preposterous humiliation. (I'll lose the link.) Scartol ·  Talk 03:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. That's what I'm here for. Sometimes we do odd things late at night. Or, more likely, other people add the links (it's blue - it must be right!). I found only three more that seemed questionable - I listed them on the talk page. After you check those, I would say we are ready to go! You should have the honor of nominating this fine article. Awadewit | talk 03:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You asked: "With the Balzac FAC, did you still want to divide up the work?" I don't see why you should feel responsible for doing any of the work; you've already done so much. I'm fine with us both working on it, but I'm also fine with you serving in the background and I'll do whatever repairs are necessary. (You've obviously got a lot of other things going on as well.) But if you want to be involved with fixing stuff, that's totally fine. I'll look at the other stuff on the Talk and do the nom itself tomorrow after school. Thanks again for everything. – Scartol ·  Talk 04:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I will lurk in the shadows, then, waiting to strike if there is trouble. :) Awadewit | talk 04:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's up. (Taking a deep breath.) I got up early because I couldn't wait until after school. =) Scartol ·  Talk 11:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I am off to bed myself. I teach at 4:00 (ah, the joys of college teaching). When I get back, I'll check up on the FAC. Awadewit | talk 12:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

So how long does this process usually take? I see that there are some lasting a month or so, and others (like Ban Ki-moon) were resolved in four days. I feel pathetic, but at school I keep checking the page every twenty minutes. (bites nails) -- Scartol ·  Talk 18:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say several things affect the length of time the FAC takes: who is reviewing the article, the nature of the discussion that ensues, and the trend toward "support" and "oppose". I've noticed that there is a bit of herd mentality at FAC - if a series of either supports or opposes start popping up under an article is more than likely that other reviewers will follow those. Sad but true. If good reviewers look at your article immediately, that also helps - it will draw other good reviewers. (I think that we can deduce this has happened from the fact that others have copy edited it. I know Qp10qp and he is good, for example.) We will have to see about the comments and discussion. Out of my 9 FACs, 6 achieved FA status in fewer than 10 days (1 took 13 days). The two notable exceptions dragged on for around 20 days - both of these had descended into unfortunate spats. I don't know if my experience is typical, but that is at least some data to go by. I have never nominated a controversial article before - those tend to go on for a while. Shakespeare, for example, went on for quite a while, as did intelligent design. Balzac doesn't strike me as a controversial topic, though. Awadewit | talk 03:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "Things are going well, I think. User:Qp10qp is one of those diamonds in the rough here." I agree. I got a little nervous when he did so many copyedits to the article, but I was glad to see he moved to support when I addressed his concerns. I've found that doing more work (reviewing Yasser Arafat at the moment) is a good way to keep from obsessing about the FAC. Thanks as always. – Scartol ·  Talk 13:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the copy edits improved the article and his concerns were clearly along the lines of "let's make this article better" not "my god, what crap!" (What patience you must have to review Arafat! That is such a controversial topic.) Awadewit | talk 19:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the confusion about the date. I am sure that I understand what you mean in your second comment. The facts about the remediated Superfund site are in the article and in the references. I think that I may be missing your meaning? Dincher 04:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was that the specific fact that the park was on top of a Superfund site has to have an inline citation by it in the article. I read the article and I remember thinking it didn't precisely have that. Awadewit | talk 04:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh man! I'm really sorry. I'll withdraw it, then. I couldn't do it yesterday because something came up. Wrad 15:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• No worries. I'm sure there is a way to withdraw it or put it on hold. Awadewit | talk 18:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I just withdrew it. Wrad 18:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a formal invitation to be a reviewer for WikiProject Good article sweeps. Only experienced and trusted reviewers are invited to participate in this task. If you decide to participate, keep track of your progress here. Everything you need is located on the project page. Drop a line on my talk page if you need anything. Regards, Lara Love 18:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me, but I feel like I shouldn't assume any extra responsibility at this time. I wouldn't want to promise something that I don't have time to do. Perhaps in the future, when I am not in the middle of editing so many articles simultaneously. Good luck with the sweeps - I do think that such a thing is necessary. (I noticed Edmund Burke shouldn't have passed. I link to it a lot.) Awadewit | talk 00:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

...but Stillusio hasn't edited in months.-- Rmky87 18:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps s/h'ell return someday. I simply can't do Mary Shelley myself! Awadewit | talk 18:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, for trying to engage User:Pityfoo into discussions. On the other hand try to avoid labeling good faith edits as vandalism, try to engage newbee into discussion using your own words.

BTW you are very experienced user and certainly aware of WP:3RR. Please do not violate it Alex Bakharev 08:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• See User talk:Pitythafoo - I tried the first time. :( I was misled by Pity's removal of the Michael Moore material - that usually indicates vandal. However, there were other questionable edits that only someone who knows the book would realize, I think. Also, I thought 3RR was only for the same exact edit - is that incorrect? I've never been involved in anything like this, actually. The articles I work on usually don't attract much attention. :) Awadewit | talk 08:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

On 18 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article A Vindication of the Rights of Men, 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.

-- Resurgent insurgent 10:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I hereby award The Tireless Contributor Barnstar to Awadewit in recognition of assessing over 2000 articles for WikiProject Biography's Summer 2007 Assessment Drive. Psych less 00:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a bibliography to that page. It is indeed a terrible mess, but I've put off trying to do much to fix it. Your dissertation topic sounds very interesting; I'll look forward to reading it someday. Have you been in touch with Anja Mueller? I'm sure she'd be glad to talk with you. Best, Anthony Krupp 03:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Someone interested in eighteenth-century childhood! I am always longing to meet such people! I haven't met Anja, but I have read the excellent collection of essays she edited (including yours). The topic of your book sounds fascinating and I look forward to reading it when it is published. I am currently struggling to rein in the first chapter of my dissertation, which is about philosophical and political conceptions of childhood in Locke and Rousseau. If you ever want to collaborate on the childhood page, let me know. As you say, the article is a disaster. Sharing the workload is wonderful, though. I am currently working on a revision of the Jane Austen page at the moment with another editor, but I would be more than happy to work with you on the childhood page in a few months, after that project has been completed, or whenever you feel the inclination. Nice to meet you! Awadewit | talk 04:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting the DYK for this. If you like, you could gloss the article. Are you familiar with the record? I read you're a pianist [Rach FAC]. – Outriggr  § 04:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure - I'll look over the article. I don't know much about the piece in a scholarly way, I'm afraid, so I don't know how much help I'll be. I've never played it - it is very difficult and not for the faint of heart. Do you play? By the way, thanks for writing the article - I couldn't believe we didn't have that article! Awadewit | talk 05:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I do play—I play the first few bars of Mozart K545, the first few bars of The Entertainer, Greensleeves... :-) and once I applied myself to a whole piece: Bach's sarabande minuet II in D minor from French Suite #1, trills and all. Mostly I like to improvise pseudo-baroque sounding stuff. I resent the hell out of all the families who had pianos sitting around that no one touched. If I'd actually been exposed to the instrument (never had any lessons), I'd probably have an enjoyable hobby. What do you play? – Outriggr  § 05:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I resent all of those grand pianos used as furniture because I have a crappy spinet (it was free, though - what can you say?). I am currently studying:

• Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier, Book 1: Prelude and Fugue No. 6 in D minor
• Chopin's Polonaise in C-sharp minor
• Mozart's Piano Sonata No. 7 in C major, K. 309

Well - you've at least played the first few bars of pieces that everyone learns! You should take lessons. It is so much fun. I love it. (My parents were nice - they bought a used piano when they saw me playing on my toy piano for hours on end when I was two years old. They figured if I would dedicate that much time at two, I would continue to dedicate time later. They were right.) Awadewit | talk 05:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you like Gould's WTC? If it wasn't for he I wouldn't be familiar with any of Bach. I just put on the WTC to remind myself which p&f you're referring to—it sounds rather difficult—and doesn't hold my interest (in Gould's version) like WTC2: E, D, Cf, cp, A, bf, F#, f#, and WTC1:f#. Thanks for the edits. I'll go "reply"... – Outriggr  § 06:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I am still planning to work on the science in the JP article... pretty soon now, I think (I defend my prospectus later this month). I'll try at least to make some comments and/or edits about the eudiometry bits this weekend, though I'll be on the road so it might be early next week before I can get to it. I have a few other sources I can read against Schofield that discuss the nitrous air test, though it looks like you probably have that issue pretty well worked out in the hours since you left the note for me.-- ragesoss 12:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm glad that you are still planning to work on JP. There is no rush. I am finishing up my Mary Wollstonecraft featured topic (getting eight articles to FA is hard work!) and I am also working on a revision of the Jane Austen page, so I have plenty to occupy myself. (Then there is my own dissertation, teaching, the journal issue I'm editing...) It would be nice to get JP to FA status sometime in the next year or so. Do you think that's workable? (Good luck with the prospectus defense! That is the hardest part, in my opinion - defending something you haven't yet written.) Awadewit | talk 21:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit, Continuing discussion from your editor review, the three candidates you filtered out were:

• Caleb Williams. I don't really feel that well placed to deal with this. I just own a copy of the book which contains an introduction. Also, while I'm working on my PhD, I want to limit how much I move into a totally new subject. The only book on this Godwin my university library shows up on a search of the surname is William Godwin and his world by Rosalie Glynn Grylls, published in 1953. I would hope you have better resources at your end. So, I'll pass on this as a collabiration for the next couple of years until the PhD is out of the way.

• The Ring Cycle. I and two other editors are in the middle of the WP:Wagner assessment drive each assessing all 36 articles in Category:Richard Wagner and its subcats to gauge the reliability and validity of the proposed marking scales for WP:WPO. I've currently worked through a quarter of the articles, generally longer ones. My review of the main Ring article is at Talk:Der Ring des Nibelungen/Comments. It is B-ish but needs considerable wikification and some more work on the content before going for GA. My review of one of the sub-articles is at Talk:Der Ring des Nibelungen: Composition of the text/Comments. This is basically an excellent article that needs proper wikification, especially referencing, before GA. I have five more Ring-related articles (composition of the music and one on each opera) to review which will happen over the next week before I know how the whole cycle is covered overall. Once the review of the main Wagner articles are completed - I have articles on three other major operas to look at beyond the Ring, plus biographies of Wagner, his second wife and a few smaller articles to look at, proceding at one a day - I plan to have another go at soliciting interest within WP:Wagner at collaborations. (With a project this compact, I think it is reasonable to have an objective of raising one article of B or better one grade each month.) I certainly feel the Ring is a subject that merits an FA article and it really is a subject I am interested in, having just ordered my 14th recording. I'll update you then on the level of interest from other editors. Off the top of my head, I have as resources three books which take it as its main subject, one of the ENO opera guides on each opera and other good articles in some of the boxed sets or programmes from when I've seen the operas. There are also several good websites.

• Troilus and Criseyde. I believe that this is where our knowledge is closest to being balanced. The current article is a middling stub, and a work of this significance deserves much more. I obviously have the sources I referenced in the Troilus article which include a number of good essays in the Boitani book, the introductions to the Coghill modernised text and a the Gordon book with the original text plus Il Filostrato. At a guess, you had to study the Troilus for your first degree. I hope your university library has Chaucer covered better than mine. A search on my library system indicates only 35 Chaucer items, most of which are fairly old and concern the Canterbury Tales. I can see the potential for my doing work on how the Troilus narrative fits into the tradition of the love story and you doing some on the more technical material about poetry and literature. I'm wanting to put Troilus to bed properly before I move on to a related project and have just received a book on some fragmentary plays of Sophocles which includes 52 pages on his Troilos - almost one a surviving word. So will be updating content for a while as well as carrying out the copyedits you suggested I consider.

I suggest we can keep in touch and contact each other when one of us is nearly ready to start on one of these last two projects.-- Peter cohen 21:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• I like the idea of a TandC collaboration. As I am currently hard at work on a Jane Austen collaboration at the moment, I would want to wait to start until that is over. I hope you don't mind a long-term timescale. I'm thinking Austen won't be done for another few months. It sounds, though, that you have plenty to keep you busy and there is always the non-wiki life. :) My library does indeed have much on Troilus and Criseyde. I found 142 titles under a "Troilus and Criseyde" keyword search alone. I'm going to have to find a "these are the most important works" list somewhere. I look forward to it. Awadewit | talk 22:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

errm, umm, I already owe you big time ... but.. you're the only Lit. person I know on Wikipedia ;) Well, I have a question, if you have a moment. I'm afraid I've been last-minute drafted into teaching a Lit. class.. and need something like the Basic Paradigm for Literary Analysis, but with more flesh on its bones... um.. do you know of anything like that? I am truly sorry to be a pest... Later! -- Ling.Nut 02:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• It would help if I knew more about the class - is it an introduction to poetry class? introduction to fiction? introduction to world literature? introduction to British novels? You get the idea. Awadewit | talk 03:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!! ... It's actually Bible as literature. But I want to teach students how to approach a text, tear it apart, look for major components (themes etc.) .. to look under the hood and analyze the machinery so to speak... and then convert all this mental effort into a small essay. Thanks again! -- Ling.Nut 04:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

PS I'm teaching EFL in Taiwan. For the most part, their English language skills are not on par with U.S. college freshmen... -- Ling.Nut 04:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A class on the Bible as literature is often shaped by the students' assumptions regarding the Bible's status as the divine word of God - I do not know how much resistance you will have to teaching the Bible as a historical document. Where I teach there is a great deal of resistance to such an idea. Here are some thoughts:

• Why is the Bible considered different from secular texts? (Is it something inherent in the text or something cultural/historical?)
• What is myth? folklore? How are these different from the Bible? Why?
• What kinds of stories are represented in the Bible? Why might this be? (Some of the Hebrew scriptures are the history of a nation, for example.)
• What genres are encompassed within the Bible? (poetry, laws, history, prophecy, biography, apocalypse)
• How do we think about authorship in relation to the Bible? (four writers of Genesis, for example; no single author of the entire text; some consider God the author)
• How do later writers conform their stories to earlier texts? Why might they do this? (Christian scriptures adapting to Hebrew scriptures)
• Issues of translation (doctrinal issues affecting translation)

In my experience, the best courses have a theme. Good luck - if you have any other questions, feel free to ask. Awadewit | talk 02:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Thanks for the insights! See ya 'round... -- Ling.Nut 14:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Any chance you could have another quick look at Brabham BT19? Very quick point: it has been suggested that the sentence 'Formula One is the highest form of single-seater racing defined by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), motor sport's world governing body' be removed from the first para of 'Concept', as not adding anything. I thought it might be helpful to non-F1 fans - would be interested to know what you think (since you fall strongly into that category!). Is it useful? Is it unnecessary? Or is there a need for something to explain what Formula One is, but not the current words? Ta. 4u1e 12:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am getting the idea that you specifically want me to read as a lay reader and let you know what I understand and what I don't? Awadewit | talk 03:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

See talk page. Let me know if you want more of a response. Awadewit | talk 20:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not actually "read" the article (though I don't mind giving it a look), but I'll see about making a sweep for ISBN hyphenation in the whole batch if you want me to ( this is my "cheat sheet". After a while, one starts to just remember the ranges). Circeus 05:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• That would be kind of you. Awadewit | talk 08:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. I annotated a few places where ISBN were expected, but missing (I'd have looked fro them in WorldCat, but I have to run off). An idea to avoid repeating a book citation in the bibliography (I still by far prefer "references" or "sources" for that section, btw) is to cite the book in the references, and the essay in the note: John Doe, "Essay about foo", in Smith, All about foo, pp. x–y (or just p. Z). It's done regularly with some of the larger volumes used in dinosaur articles, and some FAs by User:Mike Christie. Circeus 14:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks! Awadewit | talk 05:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Awadewit, I'm not sure if we've interacted before, but I'm an admirer of your work on FAs. I noticed what is going on at Talk:The Age of Reason, and wanted to drop a brief note of support here; Pitythafoo is clearly unused to Wikipedia and you're suffering the consequences while they learn. I hope he/she becomes familiar with the relevant policies, and turns into a constructive editor; meanwhile good luck with the situation, and on keeping your temper. I look forward to seeing the best possible article come out of your work, as usual. Mike Christie (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's nice to know people are reading my articles! I think that I should have bowed out of the AR discussion sooner. I am going to do that now. Live and learn. Awadewit | talk 13:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You have had a stroke of luck because administrator Alex Bakharev has become involved (he's probably asleep now, living in Australia). Where to go from here? I strongly suggest you set up a dialogue with Alex and ask him to help. He cares above all about the article writers; he is experienced in Russian/Ukrainian/Polish topics, and so he is more than used to tricky editing disputes. He's very wise and will know what to do.

In the short term, try to adopt the view that it's not the end of the world if the article languishes in a bad state for a day or two. The best versions can be restored in future, when things are quieter. It may be a good idea to make a note of what needs reverting rather than reverting while the other editor is editing live. Perhaps try not to say too much on the talk page: try to ignore any non-substantive point or repetition on his part. I really sympathise, though. Yesterday was a front-page day for me, and it's going to take days to unpick the damage and changes to sourced information; it's highly frustrating, particularly when one's good faith is impugned. qp10qp 15:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

...on the promotion of "Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman" to FA status. I'd completely missed that it was up there as a FAC. On a related note, many thanks for the "Reviewer's award". It's been a pleasure working with you, and it's taken me interesting places on WP I'd probably not have stumbled upon otherwise – thanks! -- Markus Poessel 17:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's great to watch this tide of beauty sweeping across people and things related to Mary Wollstonecraft. It's all the more important, since I daresay all too many people will have never heard of her; now they'll have an excellent introduction! :) Willow 16:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

PS.Do you prefer "carrilapse" or "amaxopesy"? I found myself wanting to use the idea yesterday, but couldn't make up my mind which was best... ;) Willow 16:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I like "amaxopesy", I think. The other is just a bit too obvious. :) You? Awadewit | talk 18:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I keep forgetting to answer you! I much prefer "amaxopesy" as well, being Greek and more euphonic and all, but I guess I was worried that it was too obscure for common use. Maybe that's part of its charm, though? A private term among friends? :) Willow 17:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. You failed Candide its GA nomination a while back, and the article has gone through much since then (largly towards fixing your concerns). I'm nominating it again now, and I'd really appreciate another look by you: I know you'll be very critical. Thanks! -- Rmrfstar 00:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I recognize that I have not addressed every one of your concerns from your GA review, (only most). These are the ones I'm leaving till later, or don't think are a problem. In particular the listiness of the "characters" and "allusions" sections I think should be kept for now. Also, I love that "stilted" language. This is a flaw of mine and the article's until someone else complains. I'm looking for criticism of the article as a whole. Plenty of copyediting will be done later. But I think it's at least GA quality right now. -- Rmrfstar 02:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I am too busy at the moment to give Candide the proper attention it deserves. You might ask User:Scartol - he has just written an excellent page on Balzac and gives great reviews. Awadewit | talk 03:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		With thanks for your kind and patient guidance during the FA-ization of Honoré de Balzac, I offer you this humble token of my appreciation. – Scartol ·  Talk 12:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks it's odd that the Barnstar of High Culture uses a Hollywood star as its image? – Scartol ·  Talk 12:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are some of my guesses as to the meaning of that: 1) it's a joke; 2) whoever designed the barnstar didn't really think there was a "high"/"low" culture distinction and undermined the title with the picture but most people don't really notice that; 3) it is a culture-y thing that looks like a star. Take your pick. Awadewit | talk 05:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, it seems to me there should be a literary barnstar, so I made one: {{ The Literary Barnstar}}. Use as directed. –  Scartol ·  Talk 14:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Great work on the Fanny Imlay article! One question: Did the quotation from Mark Twain get lost in the other edits, or do you think it doesn't belong? -- Shunpiker 18:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• I thought that it seemed a bit removed from Imlay's own time and there was no real explanation of the significance of Imlay to Twain (if any) or of Imlay's reputation between her death and the end of the nineteenth century or in America. What do you think? Awadewit | talk 00:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. This is a group thanks to all of you for your many comments and help in making the Bruno Maddox article reach FA. All the copyedits really helped polish up the article. I hope to work with you all once again. Best of luck on your own projects, BillDeanCarter 00:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Always glad to help out. Awadewit | talk 05:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for not only answering my request, but going through the whole thing again! Very kind. I'll try and addres the rather long and clumsy sentence you noted (I'm aware it's a general failing of mine!) 4u1e 10:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Where did your process of vetting articles for DYK come from, and is there a place where conversation about that process is underway? I find the commentary you've left on the DYK talk page, particularly regarding my most recent contribution, to be mildly offensive - and it really puts me off. I don't understand why you are replying to almost every posting, and why you appear to be the arbitrator and judge of the process at this point. Your response on my talk page is appreciated. – Freechild ( ¡!¡!¡!¡) 19:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that the DYK cabal is hard at work devising new processes, but having one person (you) critique three of my DYK entries in one day after barely anyone has said anything to dozens of entries I've made... I hope you can see my perspective. Perhaps you could try to avoid critiquing the same person repeatedly within several entries. Also, regarding your (seeming flipant) comment about WP Nebraska being busy, it is not. I am. I will assume good will from here out, but again, please consider the perspective of those whom you are addressing. – Freechild ( ¡!¡!¡!¡) 22:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about avoiding the same user. I will do that. The only reason I made the comment about WikiProject Nebraska, which I assure you was not intended to be flippant, is because I had seen so many DYK's on Nebraska come up recently. Since Nebraskans and people interested in Nebraska are few and far between and being a Nebraska person myself for much of my life, I was actually trying to be encouraging. I'm sorry that it all went so disastrously awry. Please accept my apologies. Awadewit | talk 23:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Its not a big deal - it just needed to be addressed. Thanks for replying, and see you around. – Freechild ( ¡!¡!¡!¡) 09:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Clan is Irish for family, so when refering to a single family, its singular. Fergananim —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey there. I'd just like to let you know that I've been watching the article's progress. I know I owe you a review, but I couldn't fault the article back when you asked me for help (perhaps your standards are higher than mine :) and I still can't fault it now. When you're ready for FAC, please let me know and I'll give my unconditional support. Best, Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 23:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll let you know. It'll probably be a while. Awadewit | talk 00:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarized text (assuming that it's also copyright violation, as opposed to, say, plagiarism from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica) can be dealt with in several ways. If it's just a few identical or insufficiently transformed sentences, just removing them from the article is the standard procedure. For more serious copyright violations that have indelibly affected the development of the article, some or all of the revisions since the offending material was added can be deleted. In this case, it seems like simply removing the sentences would be fine, unless there is considerably more problem prose than what you point out on the talk page (and it's not really negotiable, so if someone objects point them to Wikipedia:Copyright problems and/or bring in me or another reasonable editor to talk sense, though I would not expect Chris.B to fight about this).-- ragesoss 23:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It was actually quite a few sentences. I hope I got all of them. We'll see what happens. Awadewit | talk 00:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

hey im kinda new here so would u mind showing me around... -- imi 05:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC) imi

• I would be happy to, although I am only familiar with a few areas of wikipedia. I am primarily a writer of articles and a reviewer of articles. You might also think of putting yourself up for the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User program - the more editors helping you out, the better, in my opinion. What might you be interested in doing around here? (Also, I am sort of curious how you found me.) Awadewit | talk 05:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Awad.. May I suggest that you change the width of the banner up top here from 750px to 95%? Those of us with relatively small screens get a horizontal scroll bar, and percentage-width layout is generally preferred to fixed-widths. Just a thought. –  Scartol ·  Talk 17:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for that hint! I just copied that banner from someone - I have no idea what I'm doing when it comes to these things, so thanks for letting me know! Awadewit | talk 18:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have done minor editing on the Solon article. I noticed your remarks on why it was excluded from consideration as a good article. Do I have it right in understanding that whether or not the Plutarch and 'Aristotle' citations are from wikisource or an image of the original Greek that the article would still be excluded? What you want is recent scholarship backing up the assertions about Solon where there are now citations from Plutarch and 'Aristotle'? Thanks Johnor 06:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes - Plutarch and Aristotle are not reliable sources because they have not been fact-checked or peer-reviewed. It may be true that classicists rely on them, but readers have no way of knowing that or knowing which parts scholars have deemed reliable. That is why it is best to use scholarly materials. The ideal solution would be to use modern-day scholarly works and also include the ancient references that the scholars cite side-by-side, but that is a lot of work. The first step to writing a good article is to have a solid research base and that is works by classical scholars in this case. Awadewit | talk 06:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering how the criteria against using ancient sources to support assertions is being used in today's (9/24) main article titled: inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre . There are quite a few entries from ancient sources from Cassius Dio, Suetonius, Martial etc.. It is true that when an opinion or doubt about the veracity of the sources is given that it is backed up by recent scholarship but many quotes are not. Can you explain the reasoning or do you disagree with listing the article as a featured article? Thanks. Johnor 02:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

After a quick glance, it would seem that the research in that article is unfortunately not up to FA quality. Awadewit | talk 02:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit, in a recent peer review for the Cleomenean War, it was recomended by Roger Davies that I ask you to copy edit the article. So if you have time could you please take a look at the article, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Kyriakos 10:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for thinking of me. Unfortunately, I am too busy at the moment grading student papers to give the article the attention it deserves. Awadewit | talk 20:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've offered to take this for ya, since yknow I don't have any papers to grade or anything. BTW, the line This list makes wikipedia look too much like SparkNotes. from Talk:Candide is beautiful. Did you know SparkNotes is sponsored by one of the big chain bookstores (I can't remember which one)? They've got some nerve! –  Scartol ·  Talk 13:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's Barnes & Noble. They say "we publish study aids to enhance and encourage learning, never to substitute for careful, thorough reading of class materials" Shyeah, right! Just like CliffsNotes. Grrrrrr. –  Scartol ·  Talk 14:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The king of thread-hijackers has returned. I was looking at your comment on my Wikithoughts page, and made a new userbox about my total lack of interest in admin-ship. Just FYI. –  Scartol ·  Talk 02:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the image be scholar-related? Books or something? Awadewit | talk 04:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Yeah, I was trying to highlight the negative side of admin-ing. But I'll make an alternative version with books just for you. When I get home. –  Scartol ·  Talk 14:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Went ahead and did it now. Enjoy. –  Scartol ·  Talk 15:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I added some humor (I hope) to this version. I don't want to alienate any admins! I think we might be implying they are not scholars and that is not what I want to do. Like you, I just want to stake out my position on wikipedia as a researcher and a writer. Awadewit | talk 22:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. I think that – as with administrators at the school where I teach – there's a decision that has to be made about what's most important. Obviously as a teacher, I have to be a cop sometimes. And we have some very smart, scholarly administrators. But when push comes to shove, one's position is really about what matters most. That's how I see it. Your 'box is cool, tho. A little tall, maybe. =) –  Scartol ·  Talk 22:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit,

I've had only a little time to brood over A Vindication of the Rights of Men, so these will be just preliminary pensives. I really liked the article the first time I read it, but now I'm beginning to fear that this will be a tricky article. I hope that won't be true but in any case I'll try to help out as (if) I can.

• I agree that VRM is tricky - that is why I left it to the end. I wanted to have a lot of practice before I started it. However, now I am thinking that was not a wise decision. I should have started the article long ago. Awadewit | talk 05:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The present article describes Wollstonecraft's arguments very well; I wouldn't change those parts, but I think they would benefit from being organized more strongly and set off with other material. In particular, I feel that the chronology of the French Revolution, other responses to Burke, and Burke's arguments should be described more fully. You often introduce Burke's arguments by juxtaposing them with Wollstonecraft's; I wouldn't change that, but I would include a section dedicated to outlining Burke's arguments all in one place — twice told is thrice learned, no? The other responses to Burke and various people's responses as the French Revolution evolved might make a good final section, returning to the opening historical perspective and closing the circle. The present article is relatively short (~34 kb), so it has some room to grow.

• What you are describing is the article I plan to write (sans focus on Wollstonecraft) for the Revolution Controversy, but I agree that this article needs more of a focus on Burke. I am thinking that the "Historical context" section should be restructured:

• Revolution controversy
• Burke's Reflections
• Composition and publication of the Rights of Men

That will give me more space to expand on the larger debates as well as Burke's argument. I think that trying to outline the French Revolution is just too much. That is the glory of wikilinks. What do you think? Awadewit | talk 05:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems good! I'm just worried that many people might not remember the course of the French revolution, and the descent into the Terror. It seems as though the Revolution controversy was, at one level, an argument between two visions of human motivations and the practicalities of government. It's be nice to depict that argument, perhaps with a stray reference here and there to older works on both sides of that topic — say, Machiavelli's observation that democracies are short-lived or some insights from Socrates and Aristotle — which might enliven the article and place the controversy in a broader context. It's just a thought — it just occurred to me that other people might find references to the Greeks boring and arcane! :(

If they don't know the history of the French Revolution, I don't think that I can tell it all to them, though. That is what French Revolution is for. Also, I agree that I need to discuss the Revolution Controversy in the VRM article, but I'm not sure that I need to go into the level of detail that you are suggesting. The amount of scholarship on the Revolution Controversy is enormous. I've read a bit of it, but there are hundreds if not thousands of books on it. It cannot be easily outlined here. That is why it has its own article. I think the question should be whether the section in the article on A Vindication of the Rights of Men provides enough context to understand the work. I think that the new, expanded section does. It does not tell the reader everything about the French Revolution or the Revolution Controversy, but that is impossible. (I don't think the references to the Greeks are boring and arcane - the question is, as always, do scholars think they are important connections?) Awadewit | talk 06:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a humbly offered suggestion that might clarify what I was thinking of. You might structure the "Historical context" section with a converging funnel shape au Billy Budd, beginning by sketching the big picture of England and France in the 1780s, with their traditions and power structures, then confining attention to the French Revolution and its chronology (say, up to Napoleon's 18 Brumaire), then confining still further to Burke, e.g., "Burke wrote his pamphlet,..., near the beginning of the revolution (1790), as a letter to a young man X who had asked his opinion of the French Revolution...", then outline the letter's major arguments and tenor. My basic concern is that the present article doesn't really describe what Wollstonecraft was responding to; it seems like fighting with shadows. Admittedly, I haven't finished reading Burke's letter. I just started reading it yesterday and couldn't finish it before falling asleep; I was tired!

• I'm not really sure what you are referring to in Billy Budd - I don't see any figurative funnels there. I think that your idea sounds wonderful - if I had 100-200 pages or more. I've actually read a lot of examples of what you are talking about (this period in history fascinates me) - there is simply no way to discuss all of it concisely as well as VRM. Entire books cannot even do it justice. Let's work on getting the immediate historical context fleshed out before getting to Napoleon (who came to power after Wollstonecraft died)! (By the way, teaching these texts is very difficult, because you have to provide so much historical context to the students. The first time I read them, I was a bit adrift. I'm not sure there is any way to completely avoid that - these texts are grounded in historically-specific debates.) Awadewit | talk 05:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is just me, but I had a strong sense of an hourglass shape in Billy Budd. I felt as though the scope of the novel became inexorably ever more constricted, beginning with society, then the navy, then a ship, then a room, then a person, until it focused on a single hand; to me, it seemed as though the author was showing the funnel of causes that culminated in the killing. Afterwards, the novel's scope gradually rebroadened to the person, the room, the ship, the navy and the society, as it showed the ever-widening consequences provoked by the killing. To me it seemed like the work of an old person, being so formal in structure. I usually don't think consciously about novels I read, beyond trying to understand the feelings and motivations of the characters, but Billy Budd was an exception.

Yes, let's work together on it, although I'm afraid that you won't be able to rely on me to contribute much. I'll do my best! :) By "sketch", I really meant tracing the great tides of the revolution; we might mention the royals, since their fate is so central, but others such as Robespierre needn't be mentioned to keep it short. I also agree that Burke deserves the "primo don" position, and we should lavish space on his arguments. Some pertinent ones to the responses (in the short section I read) might be

• his repeated and scornful caricature of Price et alii as academic theoreticians of government who have no practical understanding of what motivates people, what it takes to run a government, and what some of the common pitfalls to be avoided are;
• his criteria for the success of a revolution; and
• his apodictic rejection that royalty derives its powers from the people governed. Willow 19:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What I meant by "we" was me writing and you reviewing. :) With Burke's argument, I have tried to give the outlines as I have seen it summarized. I have used Butler's book, but as I read about Wollstonecraft I took note of Burkean summaries and this is pretty accurate consensus summary, in my opinion. Someday I will work on the Reflections on the Revolution in France article - perhaps then I can write an even better summary. Awadewit | talk 06:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There's one other point that I need to mention as a sincere reviewer, although I can't really suggest anything specific to change. For me, the present article has an air of being perhaps too sympathetic to Wollstonecraft. I didn't notice it at first, perhaps because it matches my own thinking, but I seem to sense it now and worry that others will think likewise. It might be just me, though, since I was conscious of being overly sympathetic to Dorothy Wrinch in the Cyclol article, which feels somehow parallel.

• I will go back and look for that. Like you, I am sympathetic to Wollstonecraft's position rather than Burke's. That may have come through. Most scholars are as well and they can say so! Awadewit | talk 05:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• I changed a bit of diction here and there, but I honestly couldn't find much. Perhaps you could point me to some spots? I did everything I could to actually quote the most flattering passages. :) Awadewit | talk 06:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Trying my best to give you a thoughtful review, Willow 15:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• And doing a mighty fine job. :) Awadewit | talk 05:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[I am copying these comments to the peer review for VRM - I hope that is ok. Awadewit | talk 08:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)]

On 26 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edict of Châteaubriant, 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.

-- Carabinieri 19:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Except I didn't write or expand this article. Pasting onto Wetman's talk page. Awadewit | talk 21:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the really helpful criticisms, once again. I've tried to address everything you brought up*. I made some changes to the posthumous honors section without listifying it, but that's still an option. I wish I could just cut that section altogether (move the Medal of Freedom bit and ax the rest), but I guess it's valid and somewhat helpful content. In your debt, ragesoss 01:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

*Except the lead, which I'll try to deal with shortly.-- ragesoss 01:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well done again. What is the next masterpiece?? Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 03:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks! I'm working on A Vindication of the Rights of Men, but it's no masterpiece yet! I appreciate the encouragement! Awadewit | talk 05:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For helping me get History of American football through FAC with your excellent copyediting. It would have never been featured without you. Thanks! Jayron32| talk| contribs 05:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

(reply to my talk page) Actually, the bulk of the changes you made were kept. Most of the changes made to the article after you went through it were content based, such as the addition of the section on Youth and High School football, and the expansion of the Modern section. Don't short sell yourself, you did some GREAT work. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 05:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Lawks! I've been clumsy with my writing again. I meant no offense, and have apologised at the FAC. Thanks again for all your help with this article, and please don't think I had any negative thoughts about you. I did not. Cheers. 4u1e 11:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you might learn quite a lot more if you continue to receive copyedit requests. Cheers. 4u1e 09:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)