Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Day (printer)
Self-nomination. Spent a week on peer review (comments) without much comment. I realize it's on the short side for an FA, but it seems an appropriate length for the subject and I think it covers all the significant points. PRiis 05:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Not bad, but I think it would benefit from a little more appropriate wikification. Mgm|(talk) 08:53, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
- I did some wikifying myself. --JuntungWu 09:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment:. Peer review does not have much traffic and articles can spend some time there without much comments. --JuntungWu 08:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, object (1) any information on personal life? (2) the early life bit seems short, although I know there was limited info (3) can you elaborate (one line) over the use of patents in this context? I don't really know enough about this subject of exclusive printing patents so would want to know more if I am a reader. --JuntungWu 08:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)- By the way, I'd support otherwise. I understand (1) and (2) may not be actionable especially if the book referred to by Bishonen has no info but (3) should be. --JuntungWu 15:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I added a bit to hopefully clarify the patent issue (which is key, so thanks for that). I'll also see what other relevant info I can add about early years and personal life. PRiis 01:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- By the way, I'd support otherwise. I understand (1) and (2) may not be actionable especially if the book referred to by Bishonen has no info but (3) should be. --JuntungWu 15:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support, great article, note especially the wonderfully individual woodcut portrait from 1563, I suppose Day's own work (most all woodcut portraits look horrible, and could be anybody). Comprehensive account, limpid prose, interesting, a good test case for whether we mean it when we say excellent short articles are also appropriate for featuring. Only nitpick (sorry, I had plenty of opportunities to think of this earlier, I know): I don't have implicit faith in the DNB, having been disillusioned by the quality of their John Vanbrugh entry. Have you had any chance to consult e.g. C. E. Oastler, John Day, the Elizabethan Printer, 1975? It's an Oxford bibliographical society "Occasional publication", only 87 p., but might hopefully represent independent research.--Bishonen | Talk 10:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. No, I haven't looked at Oastler. The Univ of Ill Chicago has a copy in "remote storage" which might take me a while to get by interlibrary loan. Yeah, the DNB is not the best--the 1973 ed. is just a reprint edition: I think the Day entry was probably actually written at the end of the 19C. I followed the Evenden bio, which is very up-to-date, when there was a disagreement. PRiis 01:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, right, that's fine, then. I see Evenden takes Oastler into account, and Evenden's essay is clearly no mere rehash, but the real thing, being based on her PhD thesis, supposedly a forthcoming publication. Apparently it didn't forthcome yet, but I'm happy without it; I never thought you needed more info, just to make sure it was up to date. I agree with Johnleemk, and I don't understand why Everyking says "comprehensive" when he means "long". Long is not a featured article criterion. Bishonen | Talk 07:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. No, I haven't looked at Oastler. The Univ of Ill Chicago has a copy in "remote storage" which might take me a while to get by interlibrary loan. Yeah, the DNB is not the best--the 1973 ed. is just a reprint edition: I think the Day entry was probably actually written at the end of the 19C. I followed the Evenden bio, which is very up-to-date, when there was a disagreement. PRiis 01:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Object. Expand significantly. Needs to be comprehensive. Everyking 17:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Can you be more specific? PRiis 01:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I find one of the most ridiculous parts of FAC culture to be objecting based on comprehensiveness simply because the article isn't long enough. Objecting without even providing areas where you think there are holes is another equally bad issue. Johnleemk | Talk 05:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The alternative is that articles that might make the grade in a paper encyclopedia, but not Wikipedia, would get through. My objection stands. I don't like to object, but it's just not nearly long enough. Should be at least doubled in size. Everyking 05:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Policy states: "Some people feel that every featured article should have a certain length, and if not enough can be said about the article's subject to reach that length, it should in most cases be merged into another article. However, excellent short articles are also accepted." (My italics). Since you really cannot merge a biography into something else, and there's limited scholarly research or even records on that guy, I have trouble figuring out how to double the length of the article. --JuntungWu 08:24, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- In the past, I've supported short articles when it was clear to me that there was no realistic possibility of future expansion, because everything that was known was already there. Is that truly the case with this guy? Everyking 14:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, you've got a point there. Let's see what happens. Anyway, support as I am not actually seeing much realistic hopes for expansion and it looks good enough as it stands. I hope I am proved wrong and that the article does expand. --JuntungWu 15:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- One thing to bear in mind is the fact that though Day was for a time at the top of his trade, he was still a sixteenth-century tradesman. We can't expect the kind of documentation to survive that we could from, say, a nobleman like Cecil, a churchman, or even a scholar like Camden, who corresponded widely and whose letters were kept by their recipients. Usually records aren't kept unless they're percieved as having some value. What biographical material we do have on Day is largely from the business records of the Stationers' Company and from legal proceedings. For example, we only know his year of birth from a portrait which happened to give his age and its date of creation. I shouldn't pre-judge the Oastler book, but considering who published it, there's a good chance that its orientation is biblographical rather than biographical. PRiis 22:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- My earlier vote was based on the assumption that the article could be longer but was not simply because some facts were not deemed important or some such logic. If it is a case where there simply is nothing more to be written, then consider my vote an abstain rather than an object. Everyking 22:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I don't mean to mislead. It would be a lie to say the article contained every piece of information that was speculated or known about John Day. As is appropriate for an encyclopedia article, there is some selectivity--there has to be: this is an encyclopedia, not an Imperial Chinese collectanea. I am saying that there are no significant areas that are missing, the article, in my opinion, gives a complete picture of who he was, what he did and what his significance was. My point was that there's little hope in holding out for a tranche of fresh biographical data. I do firmly believe that some facts are more important than others, and failing to make that distinction does the reader a disservice. PRiis 00:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- In the past, I've supported short articles when it was clear to me that there was no realistic possibility of future expansion, because everything that was known was already there. Is that truly the case with this guy? Everyking 14:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Policy states: "Some people feel that every featured article should have a certain length, and if not enough can be said about the article's subject to reach that length, it should in most cases be merged into another article. However, excellent short articles are also accepted." (My italics). Since you really cannot merge a biography into something else, and there's limited scholarly research or even records on that guy, I have trouble figuring out how to double the length of the article. --JuntungWu 08:24, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The alternative is that articles that might make the grade in a paper encyclopedia, but not Wikipedia, would get through. My objection stands. I don't like to object, but it's just not nearly long enough. Should be at least doubled in size. Everyking 05:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support Seems complete and well written article. The first image is not showing on my screen though, is that the server or and edit fault? Giano 17:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I can see it now too! Giano 19:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)