User talk:Graham Beards

One of my diagrams

Re Wells Cathedral FA comments

Can I just make it clear to you, in case you are in any doubt, that your criticisms were both pertinent and valued.

Thank you for pointing out my overuse of phrases beginning with "with". I had not noticed the repetitiousness of it, but it all showed up when I did a count on the word.

My gripe was brought on by the fact that the same individual whose numerous tweaks to the article required extensive correction, then requested that someone else should "tighten" it. So far three people have "tightened" the prose, each time introducing more errors than the process was worth.

I don't know why, given the advanced state of the article,and the FA process, more people don't simply leave the sort of message that you left, which was welcome and brought immediate response.

There are a several other editors who, in the past few days, have applied themselves to correcting things and caused no problems at all.

Amandajm (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

GrahamColm, would you mind casting your eye over the Wells Cathedral article and making whatever comments you consider relevant. I found your observations practical on one hand and insightful on the other. Amandajm (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Any more comments from me would exclude me from closing the FAC (I might have gone too far already). I offer this advice, even our most gifted writers are not the best at judging the quality of their own prose. Graham Colm (talk)

Crocodilia

I see that you have promoted the article. However I was only about halfway through my review. I suppose that my review was not fast enough for you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, this wasn't clear (at least to me). It would be helpful in future, if you could add the comment "more to follow". You could continue your review on the Talk Page. No article is perfect, and this includes our FAs. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg

Sorry, Graham. Normally I would be glad to help you out with this, but lately I've been under fire for reverting people, so I'm choosing my battles. Maybe Doc is right that it should be nomed for deletion. At least then, everyone would be able to make their arguments, and it might get settled once and for all, versus the back-and-forth that I could see developing. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a striking image and all it needs is a stronger fair use rationale imho. It aptly illustrates the gravity of Hendrix's arrest. I did not see its inclusion or exclusion as a barrier to promotion. Well done, by the way. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)