Talk:Gill Sans/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Will review. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 05:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Fairly well-written, only a few comments:

• In the lead:

• Can paras be merged? It looks choppy.

• Reorganised. Thanks for pointing this out.

• by the 1920s a well-established sculptor and lettering artist I think "a well-established sculptor and lettering artist by the 1920s" sounds better

• Reorganised and introduced Cleverdon a bit better.

• In Characteristics:

• a very different feel What does "feel" mean here?

• I'm thinking about adding an example image. The next sentence does explain it a bit.

• The reword looks good. Let us have no more images, there are such a lot of them already. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 02:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• You should introduce Johnston when you begin with the article, even if s/he is mentioned in the lead.

• Put in a bit about him. I've managed to find the original source for the first quote from him also.

• very similar to Johnston I think "Johnston" here needs italics

• Font names traditionally aren't given in italics so this isn't necessary.

• has a dramatic narrowing I thinking "striking" would read better. Try to avoid strong wording wherever possible. Another instance I noticed: an extremely eccentric design of i and j

• I've taken out the "dramatic" but extremely eccentric is no exaggeration: I can't think of another Latin-alphabet font that uses this style - it must be almost unique, and nobody has decided copying it was a good idea.

• In Development:

• Present Morison and Cleverdon.

• Done in lead, which I hope is enough. He's not that important to main body of the article.

• collaboration with Johnston Gill had intermittently "Johnston, Gill"

• Good spot, thanks.

• Remove the link to "italic", it is a duplicate
• "Perpetua" is linked twice.

• Fixed, those, thanks.

• In the roman Should it not be "R"?

• No, oddly enough. See the roman type article.

• However, Gill did not use the calligraphic italic...standard "double-story" g in italic. Looks like this is unsourced.
• Remaining uncited parts:

1. The long series of extensions, redrawings and conversions...alternative designs and releases
2. Gill was commissioned to develop...Monotype or Linotype machines.

• After thought I have decided to remove the Arabic section (which is from before I started to improve the article) and take it out of the article altogether. It's a separate design and not based on Gill Sans. I'm putting it in the Eric Gill article. "The long series of extensions, redrawings and conversions" etc section is cited now.

• In Alternate characters, there are 3 duplinks: Futura, oblique and Dwiggins'

• Fixed these

• In Digital releases:

• Link Windows 10.
• for example in the book weight "example, in"
• 3 duplinks: text figures, Joanna, swash. Please note that you may choose to keep the duplink if it is appropriate to link it there as well, or the last link was quite a while ago.
• The Pro release of 2005...as stylistic alternates. Apparently unsourced.

• Fixed these

• In Usage:

• 4 duplinks: Monotype Grotesque, Univers, phototypesetting, Futura
• It was also used by London Transport for externally printed output which could not be efficiently set in Johnston. , Wikimedia Foundation uses Gill Sans as its corporate typeface. Apparently unsourced

• Fixed

• In Similar fonts:

• Duplinks:

• In Early competitors: Stephenson Blake, Penguin, phototype
• In Later and digital-only designs: Helvetica, Univers, oblique
• In Font superfamilies: Joanna
• Fixed

• In Legal aspects:

• The first para is apparently unsourced.

• Added citations now.

• Sources: I have not taken a close look, but I wonder if it is proper to use commercial websites like MyFonts and Letterhead.

• I think it's reasonable as a link to show what fonts have been digitised - they aren't really being used as a source on the history so much. I wanted to have online links also that you could click on - if I just cited books I read in libraries while researching this article that would not be so accessible for people like you from a different country to look at.

• There may be some copyvio concerns, check here.

• Don't worry, all of those are aggregation sites copying this article or cited sources.

That should be it. These addressed, I would be happy to promote this beautiful article. Cheers! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 10:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Blythwood: You there? Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 02:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Blythwood: I see you have been making changes to the article. I would appreciate it if you could inform me on what all you have done there, it will help me keep track of the changes. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Sainsf: - Hi! Sorry, I didn't notice that this page existed for some reason. Thanks very much for your recommendations and review. I will be thinking about all this over the next few days. Blythwood (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Very well, all issues have been sorted out. This is promoted. Cheers! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)