Talk:Isaac Perrins

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Isaac Perrins/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

A very interesting article, with only a few points to clear up.

• "It was a fight between Hercules and a boy": This is mentioned twice. In the lead, it makes little sense unless it is changed to: "The fight was described as one between Hercules and a boy". Also, this and the later example in the article needs to make it clear which fighter was "Hercules" and which "a boy". When I first read the lead, seeing that Johnson won and it was a "physical mismatch", I assumed Perrins was massacred and so was "the boy"! However, the source reveals it was Johnson who was outmatched. Maybe clear this up in both mentions?

•  Done - (I think!). Gosh, I didn't spot that it could be read in the manner which you read it. Tbh, I would have liked to have referred to it as a David vs Goliath situation but was surprised to find that there does not appear to be anything on WP which describes this term, whereby the physical underdog wins out. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• A few places would benefit from prose tightening. Three spring to mind, but it may be worth checking for others.
  • "concerned mainly with regard to [by] the number of criminals who would congregate [congregating]"

•  Done - and tightened a few other bits also - Sitush (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• • "in particular because fights could be arranged to take [took] place on private estates..."

• There is no certainty that they all took place on private estates, so "took" would possibly be incorrect. - Sitush (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Done - found a compromise solution - Sitush (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• • "although it has been pointed out [by who? A name is better here] in this regard that all engine-erectors would need needed to be literate...

•  Done - Sitush (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Who are Jacombs and Pickard? Either explain a little or link.

• This is difficult. I will double-check the resources but I'd already been through them in an attempt to find these men referred to in any more detail than just their surnames. It seems that they were known in their day but have been lost to history. Tbc. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• If it's impossible, they could simply be called "fighters"; it is probably obvious, but worth pointing out. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• I've amended it but I think that you will now say that it is WP:OR, so I'm not marking it as done just yet. - Sitush (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Done - I've now simply dispensed with it altogether. - Sitush (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Possibly revise the prizefighter section into chronological order? At the moment, it just about works but jumps a little. I think it would be better to begin with his reputation, then the challenges to London based fighters, then the fight. At the moment, it begins with the fight then tracks back.

•  Done - well, as best I can. I think if his size (which is a major factor in his reputation) is moved away from that of Johnson then the reader's eyes will be jumping up and down the section for comparative purposes. If this section needs more work then I might struggle to achieve it, but let me know anyway. - Sitush (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Despite the brutal nature of prizefighting, it is recorded that Perrins was of a "lamb-like disposition" and an intelligent, modest, discerning and well-liked man. He was also jolly, full of anecdotes and ever ready to sing a tune, all of these things standing him in good stead when he moved to become a publican. Nonetheless, he was "an erratic histrionic genius, whose reckless riot ruined and extinguished his higher gifts."" This reads like POV, and these opinions and quotes need in-text attribution.

•  Done - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Could some detail be added on his fighting style/technique. I notice there is a little bit in ODNB about this.

• ODNB says what the article says, ie: he was naive regarding tactics & lost because of exhaustion/the "shifting" issue. However, there are detailed "blow by blow" accounts in some of the other sources, so will see what I can usefully gain from them. - Sitush (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Done Have added what I can about the fight without going into blow-by-blow mode. Aside from descriptions of this fight, I am unaware of any sources which relate Perrins' style. These things were usually toe-to-toe slugfests, which is why Johnson's interpretation of the rules (and the umpires support of his view) won the day. - Sitush (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• " In October 1791 John Stratford wrote to him at Soho seeking information and a recommendation regarding moving from his job as an "engine tenter" (a person in charge of operating and maintaining a steam engine) at the Gregory lead mine, Ashover to a similar job tending a Boulton and Watt engine then being installed in Manchester. Stratford was at that time caught in the middle of a commercial dispute between his employers, of whom by then he thought badly, and Boulton and Watt themselves.":It is not quite clear here when you are talking about Perrins and when its Stratford. Also, this may be too much about Stratford.

•  Done - Yes, too much information. I've cut it right back and hopefully a side-effect is that it is now more clear also. - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• In the work section, the actions and events ascribed to Perrin seem a little random. I'm assuming these are the only recorded events in his career, and maybe this should be explained. Also, it means that this section lacks a little narrative focus; it may be better to begin with an overview of his job. The ODNB entry may provide a bit more structure.

• ODNB follows a chronological structure for the work element, as did the article with just one exception. I've shuffled the exception. As far as I can see it is a bit difficult to have an opening section about his job because he effectively had numerous jobs: engine erector, publican, fire brigade, seeker of espionage etc. Or am I missing your point? There are numerous letters in the Boulton & Watt archives which could flesh out his role with that company but using them would be WP:OR. As far as I can ascertain, everything of significance published in secondary sources is included in the article, and that include secondary sources which I looked through but produced no results (eg: The Engineer and some local newspapers). Doubtless I have missed something, but it is unlikely to be major. He says, while touching wood with crossed fingers!- Sitush (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• "...although the transcriber had used the older age previously in another work." I don't quite understand this. The person who wrote the memorial inscription? My reading of the source suggests that you are talking about the person who copied down the inscription and are suggesting this person elsewhere gives a different age. Is this important? I think such a detail warrants no more than a note.

• Hm. It is a discrepancy in the sources, which should be mentioned because of that. Otherwise, if a reader goes to one of the sources then they'll be within their rights to say "hey, the article is wrong about this - the source actually says ..." (and maybe even edit the thing accordingly). The awkward bit is that, as you have realised, the discrepancy involves the same author! I can relegate it to a note if you think that is a more appropriate treatment. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to say a note, as it distracts from the article a little. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Done - in the only way I know how to do it. - Sitush (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Spot checks of available refs check out, although some are subscription only. However, two small concerns with unsupported statements:
  • "Employed as a coppersmith and foreman by Boulton and Watt in Birmingham..." Not supported by ref 14, oddly enough, but is supported by plenty of others.
    • [14] does support "foreman" - note at bottom of p. 60. Needs to find the coppersmith one. - Sitush (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Now removed "coppersmith". Haven't got a clue where I saw that reference, cannot spot it now and it is not of great importance.
    •  Done - Sitush (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "Perrins eventually moved to Manchester permanently in 1793 in order to run a public house." Not supported by a ref.
    •  Done - Sitush (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• DABlinks/: Coleshill, Mancunian, Newmarket and West Midlands.

 Done - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Some of the external links are subscriptions and should be indicated as such. Also, the external links tool shows some redirects.

• I am a bit uncertain about how to deal with the subscription element and WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT offers no assistance. Can you give me a policy/guideline link, please? - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• I always use Template:Subscription required, which gives (subscription required) after the link. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Done sub required point.
• Redirects - tricky one, this. The redirects involve www.hathitrust.org and are the site's "permanent link" to each source. If I copy/paste the exact url from the browser address bar then that is not a permanent link and may disappear. Have you come across this situation before? I know that it applied in the case of Churchill Machine Tool Company and the GA + peer reviewers of that did not express a concern. - Sitush (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Not a problem; I know the tool sometimes throws up odd stuff. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll put the article on hold for now, but I don't foresee too many problems to passing. Once these issues are sorted, I'll do a last check for prose and reference problems. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Principal editor - thanks for the above. I'll deal with the issues and comment on the points etc inline. As you say, it should not take long but there are one or two sticking points (available info about Jacombs etc is limited to that which.has already been given - even the first name of the guy is never mentioned). Anyway, give me a day or tow and I'll drop a note on your talk page so that you can re-review. I'm grateful for your time in reviewing etc so far. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Two other points:

• "He had been tactically naive in dealing with Johnson's superior footwork and use of the rules, or the omissions therein." A little flowery: is it a direct quote. If so, it needs attribution; if not it could be toned down!

•  Done - used direct quote from ODNB rather than paraphrase - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• "By the fight's end Perrins' head "had scarcely the traces left of a human being"." The quote needs a ref directly after it and it needs in-text attribution.

•  Done - cited/attributed inline. Oddly, I had to find this the hard way yesterday because I first came across it in the History Today article, where it was for some bizarre not attributed/referenced. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Everything else looks good now, and I'll pass after this. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

All good, passing now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)