User talk:Maralia

Template:Archive box collapsible

	Fragmented conversations hurt my brain.
	I will respond here to comments that are posted here, and, well, elsewhere to comments posted elsewhere. Please, please don't fragment a conversation just to get my attention—if I comment at a page, it's a very safe assumption that I have watchlisted it. If you are concerned that I might miss a post elsewhere, use {{Talkback}} to notify me here.

Constitution thanks

For your efforts to copyedit USS Constitution. The article is now GA! --Brad (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad to see it reach GA! Citing page numbers, while necessary, will expand the appearance of the reference list, so I'd especially like to tweak the book cites to use short format (name, year, page number) in conjunction with the full listings in the bibliography. Do you have a guesstimated timeframe for FA? I imagine it's going to take a lot of work to pull page numbers after the fact :/ Maralia (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this must be done to go any higher on the rating scale. A-class will be next but overall I have no set time schedule for things. I could cite page numbers right now for Martin (different edition) and Toll. I will be removing Fitz-Enz entirely and replacing that with another book that I'll have by Wednesday and at the same time I could pick up the Jennings book. The Project Gutenberg books that I've used have no page numbers at all, and I don't know how those should be handled. What would help me the most is getting a kick start on revamping the references. After that I think it would be a matter of just following the form. --Brad (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the Gutenburg books, a good compromise would be to cite the appropriate chapter, since page numbers aren't available online. As to the rest: I'll start converting some long-form book cites into short-form. After all the page numbers are in, we'll need to remember to take one more step to 'group' any same-page cites. If we are stringent about keeping to the short-form cite format, simple search-and-replaces should take care of that final step, when the time comes. I'll start with Toll; let me know whichever ones I should do next (I don't want to do them too far ahead of you or it will make the references look terrible). Maralia (talk) 05:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing about the Gutenberg books is that the WP:V expectations are different. If there is a web accessible link to the full text (especially if the text is searchable) then verifying a reference is trivial, even without page numbers. I'm not saying they aren't needed but if there is no clear pagination it is less of a dealbreaker issue. Protonk (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but chapters would be better than nothing, in case the Gutenberg links get taken down or something random :) As to short-form refs: I just converted the Toll cites to short-form, but it makes the references look so terrible (without the page numbers and related grouping) that I don't want to save my changes. I think it makes more sense for you to convert them as you get page numbers—simply change <ref name="Toll" /> to <ref>Toll 2006, p. x</ref> as you go, using ref names for any groupable (same-page) cites. Make sense? Maralia (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start with Toll sometime today and see what happens. Once I do this often enough things will be ok. --Brad (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited Toll to page numbers. Let me know how that looks. --Brad (talk) 02:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the right idea. I tidied it up a little; try to remember to keep the comma position consistent (after the year), and use pp. rather than p. if the citation is for multiple pages. Let me know when you get the next set in, and I'll take another look. Maralia (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing the Martin refs currently but this may take a few days. A new book I just acquired is Old Ironsides ISBN 0-7838-9151-2 and would like your opinion on whether this book is an acceptable replacement for Fitz-Enz. Otherwise it seems that I've depleted all the books I have access to. --Brad (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions:

I may have missed something here, but why exactly are we trying to replace Fitz-Enz?

At the GAR it was brought to my attention that his book may not be a good RS. In all cases the only cites I used from Fitz-Enz are where his info compared to Martin and others.

The Edwin Palmer Hoyt book is listed by Amazon as fiction written for ages 9–12, so it seems an unlikely substitute for Fitz-Enz, although I haven't seen it myself.

My library network has it listed as adult non-fiction albeit in large print. I have the book here on my desk.

This spurred me to check what is cited to Wachtel (also a young readers book): the ship's beam, and that 'she would often carry over fifty guns at a time'. Surely some of the more scholarly sources could support these two facts now?

Yeah, that one should go; I'll find other sources.

You haven't mentioned getting page numbers for the Bernard Ireland book. If you're not able to get your hands on it, let me know and I'll try to find it.

I'll take a look at the format of the Martin refs later tonight. Maralia (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can get the Ireland book again but not right away. I've tried to use a broad spectrum of material to cite from so far but I've pretty much run out of books to cite at this point. I do have some public domain PDF's I haven't read through yet. Those might compliment the article enough to where I can stop being concerned about books. --Brad (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break

I've finished Martin while picking up after your examples of formatting. Next book to be fixed will be Jennings. What were your thoughts on this Fitz-Enz problem? If Hoyt can't be proven to be adult non-fiction then I guess we'll have to keep Fitz-Enz. --Brad (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You needn't 'prove' it per se: Amazon is notoriously error-ridden, and I would certainly put more weight on your judgment, as you have the book in hand. Does it cite sources or include a bibliography? Maralia (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for Fitz-Enz to come in at the library again but I think his bibli was better than Hoyt's, so I'm keeping it. Other references that you suggested use the chapter numbers would go something like this <ref>Abbott 1896, Chapter #</ref>? --Brad (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Maralia, I'm not sure if I ever encountered you on here before but I've been around the featured article candidate block a few times. There was a time when I refused to nominate any articles for FAC because of the excruciatingly ego-busting ~~battle~~ experience that is FAC. This recent FAC for James Russell Lowell, however, has been one of the most positive experiences of my tenure here at Wikipedia. Your comments were extremely thorough, well-considered, and presented in the true spirit of this project: helpful collaboration. I have never been known to take criticism well, but I was unable to consider any of your comments critical. Instead they were sincerely helpful... isn't that what WP is all about? I considered offering you a barnstar. Instead, I offer these (public) words of thanks and of praise. You are, as I said, nothing less than awesome and a true credit to Wikipedia. I look forward to further e-interaction. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. You really made my day with your kind praise. I had noticed your article work on Margaret Fuller and Nathaniel Parker Willis this summer, and read the FACs for both. I chose Lowell to review knowing that the prose would be good (not riddled with, say, GoogleTranslatorese or Indglish); that the sourcing would be solid (not loaded with about.com and blogs); and that you would approach FAC comments as opportunities for article improvement (not obstacles to the quest for a gold star). My review was not affected by these presumptions, of course—even great writers produce some doozies, and nobody gets a free pass—but my time is limited and FACs are many, and I attempt to pick nominations that are likely to succeed (or, unfortunately, fail) with only moderate work at FAC. Reviewing is a largely thankless job; just hearing that you consider your FAC one of your 'most positive experiences' here is incredibly rewarding. Really, my efforts at Lowell were not extraordinary, for me or for many other frequent reviewers—the difference was you. You came to FAC with the right attitude and a solid article that just needed a little polishing. It was a pleasure working with you, and congratulations! Maralia (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proseline

Hiya Maralia. I see you made the edit at WP:BETTER substituting WP:PROSELINE for WP:LISTCRUFT. What I'm doing on other style guidelines pages is, when one example is swapped out for another or one essay is swapped for another, I take a hard look at whether we could get along without any essay or example. This looks like one of those cases to me. The discussions I've seen in review processes on prose vs. lists vs. tables are pretty deep; I'd be happy to give editors a quick answer, but my feeling is that the current guidelines (including the little information there is at WP:EMBED) are about as helpful as we can be, in general; every case is different. Would you mind if I remove the link? (Feel free to reply here or there.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me to not link to anything there. I made the change because the listcruft essay was clearly off-topic (it's about list articles, not lists within articles). Maralia (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and thanks. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admit it

I do keep ya'll busy, don't I? ;-)

		The TomStar81 Spelling Award
		Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that Maralia has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this TomStar81 Spelling Award and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge

Thank you for your compliments. Please accept my gratitude as well for your great copyedits to the article; it further improved the reading experience! Jappalang (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit help

Hi there. I'm wondering if you might have time to help copyediting Alien (film). It's currently at FAC and some concerns about prose have been brought up. I've gone over Tony's guides but I feel I am too close to the text (being the primary contributor) to be able to take an objective eye and work out the kinks. Jappalang recommended you as an experienced copyeditor, so I'm hoping you might have time to lend an eye to the article. Thanks very much for your consideration. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]