User talk:Circeus/august2007

List of Aston Villa F.C. players

This article has now been improved in relation to the FLC reviewers suggestions. I would now appreciate any further comment. Thanks Woodym555 19:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you not think that deleting Aston Villa captains and moving it to List of Aston Villa players F.C. deserved some comment. Unilateral action is not permitted under WP:CONSENSUS. I think it would have benn wise to start a discussion on the relevant talk pages, the main editors pages or even the WP:FOOTY page. I think the captains section now clogs up the page and it is unneccessary. I think the list of Captains warranted its own page. As such I will start up a debate on the WP:FOOTY talk page. Thanks Woodym555 16:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to apologise about your tone, it made your opinions perfectly clear and that was what was needed. I understand that you have a lot of experience editing lists. I think we need to find a way of integrating the captains table into the main list. We need a separate column for captaincy and when it was. I think we can remove the achievements section unless we want every single player to have their achievements listed. I also think the Aston Villa Hall of Fame section is unneccessary, does it not already expalin all of that in the main list and on the main Aston Villa F.C. page. I think the note about Ron Saunders can be added there can it not?

I think and hope that we can work together to improve the list. What do you think about my suggestions? Thanks for your help. Woodym555 17:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There were a lot of redundant headers, i agree; thanks for clearing it up. As to the Hall of Fame i agree that they won't become inconsistent (unless a new intake is conducted) but i don't think it warrants the separate mentions. The colour coding deals with it perfectly adequately. The footnote at the bottom should link to the main Aston Villa F.C. page subsection.

With regards to the place of discussion i agree it should be conducted on the footy page and then copied over to the talk page. I do think it is now a discussion of the specifics of the article as opposed to a general discussion on the validity of an Aston Villa captains page. As long as all the information can adequately be portrayed on the Aston Villa list then i see no reason why it should have a separate article. Thanks Woodym555 18:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that the current version is a bit garish? I think that only the captaincy column should have a yellow background. Do you agree? Thanks Woodym555 21:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say entirely unneccessary. I don't think that it would immediately become apparant from looking at the article who was Captain (unless you use the sort feature of course which will bring up a chrono view). I think that even with the less invasive colour that i have used it is still too "big". I think a good compromise would be to only have the Captaincy column highlighted. Opinions? Thanks Woodym555 21:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, once the colour issue has been settled i will move the notes onto the main list. Do you think that they should go in the captaincy or the records column. Once that has been done I will delete the Captains table. Thanks Woodym555 21:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the table is now complete. Although i have to admit i am unhappy with your disregarding of the discussion on the talk page. I think the captains notes should be in the captains columns and i see no reason for the 100 to be turned into a footnote. That being said, if you are happy with it then so be it. Thanks Woodym555 19:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for explaining it. Perhaps unhappy was a bit far, disgruntled would probably have been better. Would it be okay to delete the now redundant tables at the bottom of the page (HoF and Captains? Thanks Woodym555 19:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless a second intake is conducted there is no need for the table at the moment. If indeed a second intake is conducted then the notes can be amended to say AVHoF 2006 intake, or indeed the AVFC main article can be amended. Thanks again for helping us improve this list. I know it hasn't exactly been easy and i do think a less committed editor would have abandoned the list entirely a few days ago. I hope my incessant editing hasn't been too much of an inconvenience! Thanks again. Woodym555 19:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Masona

Thankyou for fixing up the references to be consistent with Wikipedian norms, but is it not a little redundant to avoid the use of "ibidem"? (I am going away for a few days, so expect no forthcoming response, by the way.) Srnec 03:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK carrot

We can put the pressure on admins to help update by withholding their noms :) Either that or create barnstar for updating DYK lol. Barncarrots! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Chronology of Mary Wollstonecraft

In your edit summary for changing "Chronology of Mary Wollstonecraft" to "Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft", you mentioned that it was the "more general usage". Do you mean inside wikipedia? Almost all of the "timelines" that I drew on for the page were called "chronologies". Just curious, so I know what to do in the future. Also, if you have any thoughts on how to improve the page, please let me know. Awadewit | talk 21:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you have now split the chronology into decades. Is this solely for the ease of editing? I'm a little uncomfortable with the arrangement, because now it looks like the decades are supposed to be important for some reason and, of course, they are merely arbitrary breaks. Awadewit | talk 00:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Polish Jura on DYK

Thank you for making my day. I read your comments at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Time_skip. You guys, in charge of the updates, are at the forefront of Wikipedia and if it wasn’t for your effort, I wouldn’t have written half of the articles I did. I love the anticipation, and have trust in your judgment with the selection of hooks for the front page. Please accept my sincere thanks. Btw, a new bot would probably help you most with the article Talk page updates. --Poeticbent talk 04:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is discussion regarding that at WT:DYK.Not sure how likely it is to get done, though. Circeus 20:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of the challenge. Good luck with it though. You need all the help you can get. --Poeticbent talk 23:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Election sejm of 1632 - DYK copyedit

I think so, although I am always careful with Orthodox - in the aftermath of Union of Brest, the terminology became a mess.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not Oriental :) Eastern for 99%.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Featured List Update

Good catch. :) Geraldk 22:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK-Timothy Christian Schools

Thanks for the heads up on Timothy Christian School. It is nice to see articles I've started on the main page.--Eva ^bd 14:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

disputes

You just don't understand - I'm right 100% of the time and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong...... :) (But seriously, I remember Ambrose Bierce having some fun with this..) 22:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Plunketts Creek DYK

Thanks for your edits on and selection of Plunketts Creek for DYK. Just wanted to let you know that it is not in the DYK archive for some reason (see Wikipedia:Recent additions). Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• I see it has been fixed now - glad to have been of help - thanks again! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Pygmy Hippopotamus

Circeus, thanks for your comments on the Pygmy Hippopotamus FAC. I would really like to address your concerns, but I must admit I'm a little surprised that you have chosen to oppose the entire FAC on the two reasons you provided.

The Evolution section is only 5 paragraphs. I personally believe it's absolutely essential to note that 1) they are closer to whales than ruminants, 2) they are nested within the anthracotheres, 3) that hippopotamids emerged 16 million years ago and 4) that pygmy hippos and hippos diverged 8 million years ago. Other than perhaps removing the paragraph about the specific species of anthracothere evolution, I'm not sure what could be cut without removing essential information. Is the section acceptable to you if that paragraph is trimmed?

As for "Prehistoric Species," I also feel this is absolutely essential information since 1) the distinction between dwarf species and pygmy species is not understood by general readers and 2) all these species are explicitly called "pygmy hippos" or "dwarf hippos." A casual reader who knows of these extinct pygmy hippos (they are labeled as such in many museums) should be able to come here to learn the truth -- that they are in fact a different genus. But they are, literally, "extinct species of pygmy hippopotamus."

Would you like this section renamed to "Extinct dwarf and pygmy hippos"? I'm extremely willing to work hard to address your concerns. Please advise me on what you would like to see for this article to pass your muster. --JayHenry 23:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I do see your point about evolution, and I think I have a good idea on how to approach this section, because as it stands I agree that the first three paragraphs apply to any member of hippopotamidae, and therefore is somewhat out of context. On your second point -- I tried to make an edit to the article further clarifying why I really believe the "extinct pygmy hippopotami" should be mentioned in the text rather than in a disambiguation. Again, the article is Pygmy Hippopotamus, and these are, even in some scientific literature, "Extinct pygmy hippopotami." I don't understand what part of the Featured Article Criteria is violated by taking two paragraphs to explain this. I will remove the content if you insist though I feel it makes the article less informative and less comprehensive for the reasons stated above. --JayHenry 03:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I completely rewrote the evolution section, shortened it to two paragraphs and linked to hippopotamus. I like this version better but please suggest tweaks (or just jump in and make them!) I also tried shortening and clarifying the section on extinct pygmy hippos and dwarf hippos. Let me know if the shortened version works for you. --JayHenry 16:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You're exactly right that it was the branches that would become hippopotamus and choeropsis that diverged 8 mya, rather than the current genera. Your point about the distance between Hexaprotodon and Choeropsis should be noted, and the clarification about archaeopotamus. Thanks! I'll clarify all of that. I've been wanting to create a diagram of the evolutionary tree, but photoshop takes me forever. As for C. madagascariensis -- perhaps creating a subsection on the Malagasy Pygmy below the Nigerian subspecies, and above evolution? There's more we could say about it, and then I suppose we could leave the Mediterranean Dwarfs off completely, as they are covered in the more detailed evolution section in the hippopotamus article, which is now linked directly. --JayHenry 18:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Have a look

Take a look at this...it's getting feral..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for all your work on DYK. - Epousesquecido 23:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK suggestions

The two DYK hooks you've just added (in an edit conflict with me!) have made a very US-biased set, with a total of four US articles. Is it possible to remove one ? Espresso Addict 23:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ack, too late! Could I just remind you to bear in mind when selecting that the guidelines state that the set should be international in flavour, with no more than one or two articles per country? Espresso Addict 23:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It's already up on the main page, so not being an admin, I don't think I can change them now! Espresso Addict 23:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Law enforcement in British Columbia, 2005

As someone who is active with featured lists and articles, could you please review this list and provide feedback. I have not found any similar articles on this topic to compare it with so I'd like to know if it is something worth pursuing. Is it too crufty or too specific? Is it understandable? I'd like to know what works and what doesn't. I've opened a FLC but comments on my or the article's talk page are welcome, too. Thanks. --maclean 06:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny

Here we go again.....here cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

TfD on weasel-inline

Hy, Circeus! I removed the TfD template from {{weasel-inline}}. It looks like the result of the TfD was a speedy, procedural keep. If it was wrong to remove the TfD template, please let me know. -- Mikeblas 00:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Cultural dinos

I'm just glad that the article is getting more attention - thanks! J. Spencer 00:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikinonses etc

Sorry to be testy with you about Banksia ericifolia.

Adding a "secure" status, although it seems to be the norm for plants, is Original Research unless cited, and really the conservation status should be left off for something like Verbascum thapsus, as no authority has assessed it, even if it seems bleeding obvious to all involved. Banksia ericifolia is a rare case that actually has been assessed, so should be referenced. Sorry to mess up the article with my hasty referencing style, but to say it doesn't need a reference is crazy. I'll write up some guidelines if they're really necessary.

I don't want to get on your nerves, as you seem to be doing good work here. But unreferenced "conservation status" (especially "Secure") is a pet hate of mine, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't see referencing as some sort of threat to the article style or layout, and I'll try to not to make it one. —Pengo 03:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"...then what should we call it if not "secure"?" Nothing. It should be left blank. Status means a status from some external authority. The reader can decide for him or herself when reading the article that the species is not threatened with extinction. But if no one else has said it, we don't. —Pengo 03:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks a lot for the barnstar. I am very pleased with it. I'll continue with the started work. Jan.Kamenicek 15:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Scrollable references?

Hi, Circeus! Just curious, regarding this edit, where does it say that scrollable references should not be used? I haven't seen that, either as policy or as MOS. Furthermore, that particular page passed WP:FLC with the scrollable reference section. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for pointing that out - I looked at WP:FOOT and didn't see it there. I wanted to add it, but there's a war going on (unrelated). Anyway, thanks again for letting me know! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Image uploads

okay so i know i didnt have the copyright for that image, but what option do i use to upload a picture of a city skyline? thank you for your help. Ndrwatthedisco 04:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Amateur Achievement Award of Astronomical Society of the Pacific

As you probably know, Amateur Achievement Award list has been promoted to Featured List. I would like to thank you not only for your support vote, but especially for your valuable comments during the promoting process. Jan.Kamenicek 20:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

FLRC

As far as I know there is no template to make the colours and background... my solution was to simply copy and paste the code from a previous one not closed by me. If you like you can create one and add it to the instructions. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Red-tailed Black Cockatoo

To cheer myself up after/during the whole pop cult debâcle, I noted a few folk starting to chip in with this sombre aussie parrot, which I had done loads on but felt a bit stalled for a while. I intend taking it to FAC next as Lion has some content holes that can only be solved by a visit to the library, whereas I have loads of material on the RTBC (as they call it in birdwatching circles). I'm still ferreting around for a bit more on the pet trade and some aboriginal folklore (it's supposed to be a rain forecaster but I have no reliable ref), and a couple of minor embellishments. I am continuing to copyedit but if you could look over it sometime this week that would be great.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I always have to pick the organisms with the complicated taxonomic history (cf Amanita phalloides) and our red and black feller is no exception -see here....gawd...In a nutshell - someone saw red and black cockies in the Sydney area (known as the Prot Jackson Settlement) and called them Psittacus magnificus but the holotype was lost and there's been argument over whether they were RTBCs or GBCs (with the latter more likely - still get GBCs but I've never seen them - there's a flock of about 30 YTBCs that fly around my house alot though....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Right - there are two cite tags for which I am unable to find info readily. I can delete them or shall I ferret around a bit more. Can you think of/see any last things before FAC? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Gawd, the Management program is doing my head in - ok - the premise is: RTBCs are valuable and often smuggled - bird fanceirs till now haven't worried too much about subspecies. This NT subspecies is abundant, hence the idea that harvesting is sustainable and will result in commerical opportunities in NT and reduce pressure for smuglers to make off with other more theratened popualtions of RTBCs elsewhere. I tried a new intro para ...and now the NT govt has taken down the #%*#*^#*#^% pdf (?!) - so I changed the ref to the orginal paper. I am trying to stick with it as it is a fascinating idea and have heard other conservation folk talking about it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

KH media FLC

Hi, I've tried to address your comments at the KH media FLC. Is the current version better? Axem Titanium 17:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A

Greetings. You protected List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A to nip an impending edit war in the bud. (I note that I reverted all of once.) Unfortunately, the version that is protected contains an unsourced and potentially libelous allegation about a living person's sexuality. I'm an admin, and I could change the protected version, but I want to tread lightly here and respect your decisions in this. I've brought the case up at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#List_of_gay.2C_lesbian_or_bisexual_people.2FA, if you're interested. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand the comment you left on my talk page. I know that protection isn't an endorsement of one version over another -- I just thought you would be interested in the BLP concerns. The history is: I made a change to the page, removing an unsourced statement which was a BLP concern. I discussed this change on the talk page. Someone reverted me without comment. I reverted -- once -- and commented (again) on the talk page. Are you saying I shouldn't have reverted? Or what? You said I should discuss this at Talk:Christina Aguilera, but the Christina Aguilara article doesn't say she's bi. Only the list says she's bi. What do you recommend I do? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Lady Byng Memorial Trophy

I have responded to your comments. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Aguilera

Sorry - I wasn't really discussing Aguilera, but having some banter with Crockspot. I'll join the discussion tonight. --David Shankbone 21:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Crowded House awards

I've made most of the changes suggested. Could you please take a look at it again? Thanks, Giggy ^Talk 23:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

FLC reviews and what not

I thought I should let you know that as per your recommendations on the FL candidacy of Ian Svenonius discography, I've split the article up into a smaller chunk (The Make-Up discography) and nominated that for FLC with a few other changes you suggested. Again, thanks for the good initial review, and I hope you can find some time to review the new candidate. Thanks! Drewcifer3000 07:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Lester_B._Pearson_Award

Bonjour Circeus!
Would you mind looking at the list again, as there have been some changes made to the lead, and I'd be interested in your opinion now. Merci! Maxim_(talk) 01:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup, Circeus. Avez-vous oubliė à propos l'article? :D Maxim_(talk) 02:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Photos in Acer grandidentatum

Concerning this edit - if the photos add to the article - close-ups of leave and seeds - why can't they be in the article? It's not just a gallery, it's useful to the reader, IMO. — Zaui (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As it is, the images added very little due to their size, and created layout concern: text squeezed between stuff on both sides displays poorly on smaller resolutions, and such image combinations surprisingly often have unwanted and unexpected display problems. (If the article was long enough to more comfortably accommodate them, I would have no issue). Besides, they were all directly accessible in the Commons gallery (Not to mention I don't think Image:BigtoothMaple0309210085.JPG is clear/crisp enough to be any use at thumbnail sizes).

I would argue that the typical user will not go to commons to look at the photos. I still think they add to the article, but I take your point about the article length - that's why I made them small when I added them. Maybe one will work - the close-up of the green leaves? — Zaui (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

vandal

Ckimpson is back as CamKimpson and has incorrectly altered a referenced EF rating in another tornado article. [1] SkyBlue eagle 20:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/George_Stark has made an article, 1977 Fairlanes Outbreak that looks very similar to Ckimpson. This outbreak never happened.

1 ADAMS 	09/11/1977 	1835 	Tornado 	F 	 0 	 0 	 25K 	 0
2 CLAY 	09/11/1977 	1840 	Tornado 	F 	0 	0 	25K 	0

Texas Location or County	Date	Time	Type	Mag	Dth	Inj	PrD	CrD
3 HARRIS 	09/11/1977 	1310 	Tornado 	F0 	0 	0 	0K 	0
4 MILAM 	09/11/1977 	1545 	Tornado 	F0 	0 	0 	25K 	0
5 COLLIN 	09/12/1977 	1620 	Tornado 	F2 	0 	0 	25K 	0
6 WICHITA 	09/12/1977 	1829 	Tornado 	F0 	0 	0 	3K 	0
TOTALS: 	0 	0 	103K 	0

SkyBlue eagle 00:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, I did a little more digging though and found this. Vandalism from last March from this IP address: User talk:24.138.29.159 and this edit [2] matches the George Stark username [3]. Except this time the mystery town of Binder River is in Nebraska rather than Kentucky! :) SkyBlue eagle 02:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Templates {{-!}} and {{-!!}}

I see it was better for you to delete. I see they really didn't merit temps. Thanks - -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ummmmm. I have created a couple I think might not be needed.... {{Rwc}}? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C. seasons

Thank you for your contribution to this article's Featured List candidacy. I have now addressed your concerns regarding the division links, and I would invite you to withdraw that objection. The article has now received four Support votes, including my own as nominator, and I believe that qualifies it for FL status. - PeeJay 01:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I do understand your objection regarding the lack of Manchester United season articles, but that is not directly related to the quality of the list article itself. The season articles are being created, and I believe that allows that particular objection to be ignored, regarding the article's FL candidacy. Everything else in the article is linked as well as it possibly can be, leading me to believe that the article qualifies for FL status under criterion 1(a)3 - PeeJay 01:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it certainly fits criterion 1(a)2, even if it doesn't fit 1(a)1. And as for criterion 1(a)3, there are a great number of seasons in Manchester United's history that are not notable in themselves, and therefore not worthy of their own article. If I was to create an article for a non-notable season, and it were to get deleted, would that preclude this list from attaining FL status? - PeeJay 01:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, so can we agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with the list itself? Is there anything about the list itself that could be changed, aside from creating over 100 new articles? If not, why can this list not be promoted? - PeeJay 01:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well if that's the case then never mind. However, I would point out that the majority of the people who have commented at the FLC seem to be willing to overlook that minor issue. By the way, I hope you are not construing my comments here as a criticism of you, personally, as I do not wish to make it sound that way. - PeeJay 01:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would seem that you are in the minority with regard to whether Manchester United F.C. seasons passes the Featured List criteria. Even though it does not pass criterion 1(a)1, it certainly passes 1(a)2, and 1(a)3 at a push, as User:BeL1EveR, User:Woodym555 and, by extension, User:Serte and User:Krm500 have proved. - PeeJay 14:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

SOS - André Kertész

Spawn Man has put up this for FAC and is understandably anxious about it and asked me to go over it - I've done some but feel it needs another person more fastidious than me for a good text massage. If you have a chance any input would be greatly appreciated. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Circeus! I was going to ask you for some help as you came highly recommended by Cas & I had seen your work before, but I guess he beat me to it. :) I wouldn't say I was anxious about the ordeal as I've been through it many times before, but it's always good to have someone such as yourself and Cas to back you up. Anyway, I've been over your comments on the talk page and managed to fix a few. I've got a few points about the suggestions I didn't or couldn't fix as well as some general comments. You can also see what I've fixed on the talk page. Okay, sorry in advance if this post gets too big:

• You wrote - "I'm not a big fan of massive number of references to a book as a whole. I favor a style more similar to, e.g., Ine of Wessex, if only because it becomes very hard to find the right link back toward the top of the article after the fifth. However, I won't impose it if it would be too inconveniencing; an option is to use chapters instead of specific page numbers."
  • I don't think that going back over the references would be a good idea - the books are large and it would be really time consuming and I'm pretty certain I'd lose my mind/my concentration for the project. Thanks for eliminating the refs on the exhibitions and books; I wasn't sure whether or not they needed to be cited individually or not, but it definitely saves some room now.
• "The article is only divided by his biography. I think a good general analysis of his artistic work and influence is also needed."
  • I'm not confident enough to do this - Do you have any ideas? I don't want things to sound too POV, which I'm afraid might happen if I start making stuff up about how great his work was. The books concentrated mainly on his life, but didn't go into too much detail on his influence in photography etc. As I put on the FAC, maybe some pictures of his work would help the reader, but again, I'm not confident and don't want to stuff up the article.
• "During the earlier years of his career which spanned for more than 70 years, his then-unorthodox camera angles, which hindered prose descriptions of his works, and his unwillingness to compromise his personal photographic style prevented his work from gaining wider recognition, as well as his use of symbolism which also became unfashionable later in his life. -- This sentence is far too long and quickly gets clunky. The last part in particular makes almost no sense."
  • I removed the last part. Admittedly, the last part was one of the few sentences from the original article, so I didn't actually write it. I musta forgotten to delete it, and reading it now, it does sound weird... As a whole, the whole opening stinks. I'm not brilliant at writing openings outside of a set piece like we have at Wikiproject dinosaurs (IE, X dino was a genus of dinosaur that lived...). Anything anybody can do to fix it would be a huge help.
• "which spanned for more than 70 years -- It's not clear whether that refers to "earlier years" or to his career as a whole."
  • I tried experimenting with the words, but couldn't find a way to express what the sentence was meant to say without sounding winding or repetitive. Ideas?
• "The lead as too much as a synthesis of his artistic work (symbolism is not mentioned any where else in the article!) and not enough has a summary of his biography and career. It needs an almost complete rewrite: If you need so many references for stuff other than quotes, you have a problem (I'm the school that tries to keep refs in the lead to a minimum) Several elements could be used to make a legacy/impact section as I suggested above."
  • Again, the opening sucks. I've deleted the symbolism problem, but the refs were mainly there because of the "first solo show" statement. Before I rewrote the article, that statement was uncited and was prodded as needing sources. So when I merged it into the lead, I kept the refs along with it. Should I remove them?
• "In 1930, Kertész was awarded a silver medal for services to photography at the Exposition Coloniale in Paris where he attended. -- The only "Exposition Coloniale" in Paris at the time was the Paris Colonial Exposition, but that was in 1931. Maybe double-check that."
  • I double checked that and the Lifetime of Photography book definitely says he received the medal in 1930 at said exhibition. Maybe the other article is wrong or my book is wrong, but it's not a typo, so a mystery to me.
• "the Keystone agency owned by Erney Prince. -- Look at Keystone to see whether we have something to link here?"
  • I'd looked before, but there's no current article to link to. The closest are Keystone Studios & Keystone Camera Company, but neither of them are the one mentioned - the name could have possibly changed...?
• "At his Venice exhibition he was awarded a gold medal for his dedication to the photographic industry, a feeling of recognition he had never felt whilst working for House and Garden. -- Extremely clunky. Not sure what you mean."
  • Not sure what's wrong with this section - it means that he felt he wasn't recognised whilst at House and Garden and when he received the medal (his first I think...?), he felt accepted. But that sounded too loose a prose and just as windy. Thoughts?

So those are my concerns/replys to your brilliant rewriting. You really did a great job and I wanted to thank you for it. Basically though, the opening sucks big time, I'm not sure how to go about making a legacy/general analysis of his artistic work/influence section, and I'm not sure how to go about getting pictures. Sure some of his photographs were prior to 75 years ago, but they weren't in America, so would that licence still count? And if I did add a fair use image, wouldn't I get opposes for using one on the FAC? Anyway, again thanks for your help. Hopefully you'll be able to continue to help me work/copyedit the article if it's not too much trouble. In any case, you've been a real help & the article looks better for it already. Time to go reply to Cas now. Cheers, :) Spawn Man 02:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

André Kertész

Sorry - I mistook this edit as vandalism, as it seemed to be removing refs without reason. I should have checked the history. Please accept my apologies. – Tivedshambo (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Continued discussion

Hello,

Scorpion0422 has closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cities in Israel, but says that he will reopen it if you agree. I unfortunately was unexpectedly absent from WP for a while in the middle of the discussion, and so I believe it would be extremely helpful if we let those (as yourself, and Golbez who actually supported previously) have a chance to reply etc. to the responses... I realise I could just open a new discussion, but it seems like it would be more productive to continue this one, especially since I am in the process of addressing the objections [even one of the FL criteria?]. Regardless, the most important point is to continue improving this list, and it just seems that this would be the course to best serve that end, though I'm of course open to any other suggestions. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 09:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Perfect flower

When you redirect, remember to remove the Project Assessment template from the article's dicussion page. Redirects don't need to be assessed. --EncycloPetey 02:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Édifice Price GA assessment on hold

Hi Circeus - I have now finished the initial GA assessment for Édifice Price, and placed the article on hold (comments on the article talk page). All the best, EyeSerene^TALK 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Pseudo flags

You also use them.

Almost all biographical articles have your "pseudo flags".

check again?

Can you check my DYK nomination here?

Mine is the second-to-last one before January 16 (the link is for January 17). You told me my hook was misleading (which it was). I changed it.... could you be amazing and check it again? smithers - talk 05:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)