Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:41, 21 August 2012

Template:Archive box collapsible Hello Boys and Girls, please read the following:

• If you leave a message here, I will reply here so please add this page to your watchlist. Likewise, if I leave a message at your talk page or an article's talk page, I'll add that to my watchlist and reply there unless you specify otherwise.
• Please be patient if you're awaiting a reply - I'm normally online daily but I do have a life outside WP.
• Please use a diff if you link to a specific comment or discussion on this page; it's regularly archived and text is liable to disappear without notice.
• I do not accept direct requests for copy-editing. Please solicit the generous assistance of the Guild of Copy Editors - you might be (un)lucky enough to find me working there.
• Barnstars and Wikilove messages are fun, and I do appreciate the sentiment, but a brief 'thanks' is thanks enough!
• I reserve the right to keep my pages tidy. Comments left here are archived after ten days from the final edit. If you're looking for something specific, check the archives; if it's before November 2011, check the page history.

Cheers, Baffle gab1978

Prometheus

Thanks for taking the job on. If you haven't seen the film and need any help understanding a particular context feel free to ask. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries; I'll check references where needed, but if I can't find something I need to clarify I'll drop you a note. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

So I'm just confirming, was the problem with the ref sorted or do you still need me to check? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, yes the referenced article covers the sentence previous to the one I removed; thanks for asking. Reference link here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

RE: Swaminarayan Sampraday

Much Delayed Thank you for the copy-edit! I was on a wikibreak, hence replying now. Cheers Around The Globe 16:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries; welcome back to WP :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Causality in Prometheus article

Thanks for your work in copy editting on Prometheus, I see that the prose has improved, but I'd like to point out a few flaws I think you've missed. Nothing personal. I agree with most of your edits, but the causality and clarity in the synopsis have some problems.

Regarding this section:

Janek also determines that the underground structure is in fact a spacecraft. Weyland and a team return to the structure and awaken the Engineer. David speaks to the Engineer, who responds by decapitating him and killing Weyland and his team. Shaw escapes the spacecraft as the Engineer activates it. She warns Janek that the Engineer is planning to release the liquid on Earth and convinces Janek to stop the spacecraft. **Vickers escapes via a lifeboat and an escape pod, and Janek collides the Prometheus with The Engineer's disabled spacecraft, which crashes onto the planet; its wreckage crushes Vickers.**

I'd like to convince you to keep the previous phrasing of the part in **..** section. In the current version, when readers reach 'Vickers escapes via a lifeboat and an escape pod,' it gives some readers a 'what?' moment in the first read. They might question 'why is she running?' and 'where is she running from?' The preceding sentences don't answer those questions. The logical connection between Vickers escaping and the previous event isn't evident. And even if the latter part of the sentence answers them, it doesn't do a very good job. It's causally jarring. (Please re-read, to see what I mean.) The context didn't explain well enough where Vickers is either. This version reads as if she was on the alien spacecraft with the Engineer instead of aboard the Prometheus. Also, Vickers's location has only been implied many sentences ago. And implied only, which is totally missable. This entire article doesn't say she's always been on the Prometheus. Casual readers won't remember where she is by the time they reach here. Without firmly establishing where she is, it produces an awkward moment when readers have to go back to look for her location again. It also doesn't tell where the escape pod or the lifeboat are. It could've been installed on the planet.

Also, in the current version, you said 'Janek collides the Prometheus with The Engineer's disabled spacecraft'. This means the spacecraft is already disabled before the collision. This is not true. The craft works. Just dormant until the Engineer pilots it. It's disabled after the collision. That's the whole point of the collision.

If you use this version:

She warns Janek that the Engineer is planning to release the liquid on Earth and convinces Janek to stop the spacecraft. Janek collides the Prometheus with the craft, but before the collision Vickers escaped via a lifeboat and an escape pod. The Engineer's disabled spacecraft crashes onto the planet; its wreckage crushes Vickers.

If you use this version, there's a clear logical connection between that section and the preceding sentence. Shaw convinced Janek to stop the Engineer's ship. And in the next sentence, Janek collide Prometheus with the ship to stop it. The questions of where and why are also answered. Vickers escapes from the Prometheus because of the incoming collision. The lifeboat and the escape pod are implied to be onboard. (Or if you must add it for clarity, we can just add 'aboard' or 'onboard' behind 'the escape pod.') The chronology is a bit unorthodox, but the message itself doesn't break the chronology. It happens exactly like that in the movie: Shaw convinces Janek that the Engineer is going to release the dark liquid on Earth, so Janek decides to collide the Prometheus into the Engineer's spaceship. And while they're accelerating the Prometheus toward the spaceship, Vickers sees what's happening and escapes via a pod. The Prometheus explodes. Vickers emerges from the pod. The Engineer's spaceship crashes shortly after, and its wreckage crushes Vickers.

So due to the reasons listed above, I'd like to convince you to use the previous phrasing or improve on it to keep the causality. Or at least, agree to let me fix this without reverting it, to avoid dispute. Anthonydraco (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Anthonydraco, I understand your point; I haven't seen the film so I'm just working from what's already written in the article. Please feel free to alter the passage; I'll be editing later so I'll insert your version if it's not done by the time I start working on it. Another pair of eyes is always a good thing :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Done - Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. And thanks for understanding. Sorry for the massive wall of text. I need to convey all the points. :P Anthonydraco (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask you questions regarding language?

Are you a native speaker? Would you mind if I consult you on English from time to time? Anyway, since I'm here, does 'finding a father-figure in the form of' sound excessive? Is it idiomatic? Would it be more concise to say 'finding a father-figure in'?

Hi Anthony, please do feel free to ask - yes I'm a native speaker though certainly not an expert. I'm from the UK. You're correct that 'finding a father figure' is idiomatic; a father figure is an older male to whom someone younger - usually but not always female - would look to for help, guidance or comfort. So we might say, "Susan found a father figure in David", or "David was a father figure to Susan". "Susan was finding a father figure in the form of David" is grammatically correct but might be rephrased as the first or second examples. It depends on the context of use, of course, and note this is not a definitive answer. I hope that's useful. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

An, thanks. So I can cut 'in the form of' without losing its meaning/idiomatic form? Anthonydraco (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, 'the form of' is essentially redundant. Always consider the context though. ;-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your hard work dealing with a big project like Prometheus, it is much appreciated! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)