Jump to content

Talk:David Hall (printer)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 07:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • "an American printer and" perhaps immigrated to America and became a printer?
  •  Done


  • "producing all of the official documents" no need for "all of the"
  •  Done


  • "the Pennsylvania Gazette" The is part of the title.
  •  Done


  • "He did publishing " hate "did" can we say "He published material for..." or something similar?
  •  Done


  • "the Continental paper money" what is that?
  •  Done


  • "Hall was born" you can usually use his full name here.
  •  Done



  • "in Watt's print shop" as you don't explain who Watt was, maybe this should be "in 'Watt's print shop' ..."
  •  Done


  • " of Benjamin Franklin who later became law-printer to the King of England" who was the "who" here? Franklin or Strahan? It's not clear.
  •  Done


  • "a honest" an
  •  Done


  • "working, printer trained, person" bit grim here, revise for decent English.
  •  Done


  • "needed a journeyman printer" do you just mean "experienced"?
  •  Done


  • "didn't ultimately like the " avoid contractions.
  •  Done


  • "Hall 12 months of Good Work for" what is Good Work, why is it capitalised and in italics??
  •  Done = Franklin offered Hall a year's employment for the trouble of coming from England...


  • This "journeyman" phrase is used repeatedly, is it USENG or is there an alternative?
  •  Done Source says, "Hall agreed, and Franklin hired him in 1744 as a journeyman."


  • "Hall became very involved as a major participant in the printing business when he started working for Franklin in 1744" feels like you've said this already?
  •  Done = removed sentence.


  • "The finest piece" according to whom?
  •  Done


  • "and did all the editing and publishing of Franklin's" -> "and edited and published Franklin's..."
  •  Done


  • "Poor Richard's Almanack " ck.
  •  Done


  • "printed almanacs.[7][2][15] Franklin" ref order.
  •  Done


  • "£2,845,608 " probably nearest £1000 and then convert to $ for your brethren.
  •  Done


  • Similar for the next inflated figure.
  •  Done


  • "and the many projects which were coming up for the betterment of the educational facilities of the colonies" this is projection, speculation.
  •  Done


  • "skillful" skilful.
  •  Done = Dictionary.com says the spelling as "skilful" is Chiefly British -> American is "skillful", as I have in the article.


  • "May 1766 Hall " comma after 1766.
  •  Done


  • "by congress during" isn't congress normally capitalised? And linked if not before?
  •  Done


  • "dramatic permanent" maybe "and" between?
  •  Done


  • "Franklin's old original" delete 'old'.
  •  Done


  • "on January 7, 1748 at" comma after 1748.
  •  Done


  • Convert "Works" section to a gallery and use the caption/label options.
  •  Done


  • See also, is getting a bit silly, 12 entries? Pick the one or two who are most closely related.
  •  Done


  • Wonning has a spaced hyphen, should be en-dash.
  •  Done


That's it. Sorry for the delay. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review. I'll get started on it.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: FWIW - I've nominated three more colonial printers. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: The other three GAN colonial printer articles I have recently improved and expanded are Isaac Collins (printer) (+635 characters) and James Parker (publisher) (+4,488 characters) and William Bradford (printer, born 1663) (+15,684‎ characters).--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: All issues have been addressed. The article is the way I want it. If User:Gwillhickers feels that the article would be improved with the suggestions he is making, then he can add that to the article with references. You can fail the nomination based on what User:Gwillhickers is saying if you want, and then we can go on to other GANs. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: I converted Gwillhickers's reference formating style to the "SFN template" so that the complete article follows this format. User:Gwillhickers and I are in complete agreement on everything in the article. All issues are now complete. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other information

[edit]

We might want to mention Hall's association and break with Joseph Galloway for the latter's support of the Stamp Act, and joined William Bradford in protesting parliamentary taxation. Both Hall and Galloway were members of the Pennsylvania Provincial Assembly.[1]

  1. ^ See Zimmerman, 1954, p. 353
  • Zimmerman, John L. (October 1954). "Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Chronicle". The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography. 81 (4). University of Pennsylvania Press: 351–364. JSTOR 20089013.

The journal, in searchable PDF form, is available for download and mentions Hall specifically, along with Galloway and William Strahan, many times. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll get to it soon but right now I'm wrapped up elsewhere. Joining Jstor is easy. I'd recommend signing up, which would give you access to many thousands of journals. Many times I have obtained detailed and in depth information there that couldn't be found elsewhere, at least by me. In the mean time I'll email you the Zimmerman pdf file. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Coldwell I think it would be useful to see what Gwillhickers sends you through before I pass the GAN. Let me know when you've received the material and had a chance to incorporate anything useful from it? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Yes, did receive the Zimmerman PDF. I read it over and don't see anything that would add value to the article.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article only mentions briefly that Hall Franklin protested the Stamp act, with no indication of how strongly he or Hall felt about such taxes. Hall had broke off his relationship with Joseph Galloway who didn't like the tax but publicly defended Parliament's right to impose it, and who, btw, was quite involved with Hall in other areas. (B. Franklin also distanced himself from Galloway over this.) The term 'Tax' or 'Taxation' is not mentioned once in the article. Hall had warned Franklin over his concern that their Gazette was already losing money and many of its customers in anticipation of the Stamp Act, but mostly because of the principle that unfair taxation was involved.<Bailyn & Hench, 1981: The Press & the American Revolution, p. 25> Hall was even more outraged over the Townshend Acts, which followed the Stamp Act, also not mentioned in the article, which is well covered by Harlan, 1974, David Hall and the Townshend Acts,  listed in the Further reading section. These things could be covered with a few sentences. I wouldn't go so far as to deny GA status over some of these things, but Hall's strong opposition to unfair taxation was commonplace among colonial printers and should be covered a bit more, imo. I'll let the reviewer decide whether this is important enough to include in the article in terms of obtaining GA. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing stopping you making some additions if you felt it necessary Gwillhickers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I added a couple of statements about Hall's reaction to both the Stamp Act and Townshend Acts, w/ citations. Info on Galloway, etc would be nice, but I'll let others make the call on that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also added to the article was information covering Hall's marriage, his sons and grandson who all became printers, along with brief coverage of Hall's church associations, membership of the Masonic lodge in Philadelphia, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gwillhickers However, all the personal information you added I already had in the article that I added September 14 in the section Personal -> so I had to revert all that you added as I already had it in the article that I added 11:49 14 September 2021 with edit summary "expand" with +7,064 characters.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Coldwell: Good gosh! I had assumed this information would have been in the Mid Life section. So sorry for getting carried away. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Coldwell: -- Again, my apologies for getting overly focused on the Mid life section. However, you reverted some things that should remain. The death year date in the info box has the same year as his birth, (1714) making the info box read '0' years old. Also, Franklin did not start the Pennsylvania Gazette, he purchased it from Samuel Keimer and simply shortened its name, retaining Pennsylvania Gazette.(Thomas, V 2, p. 134-135) One of the things that characterized the Gazette was its open criticism of the Stamp Act and other such things, which was mentioned with a brief phrase. Mention of Hall's apprenticeship with Strahan was also removed. Hall was not just a member of the Saint Andrews Society, he was one of its founding members. The source for Robert Kany is a PhD dissertation and needs to go in a 'cite thesis' template, which automatically designates PhD. Mention of the Townshend Acts has been removed, while the article only mentions that Franklin protested the Stamp Act with no mention that Hall strongly and openly protested both these acts. The article mentioned that Hall had warned Franklin that the Gazette was losing customers over the Stamp Act. If there's no pressing reason to not include these items I'll return them to the narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gwillhickers You had written in the Early life section right after his birth that He married Mary Leacock/Laycock on January 7, 1748 in Christ Church. The couple had four children. Hall's two sons, William and David, also started their own printing firm known as William and David Hall, printers, and were in turn succeeded by Hall's grandson, William Hall, Jr., who also became a printer. THEN in the next paragraph you started with Hall was apprenticed in 1729 for five years at the age of 15 to a printing firm in Scotland run by John Mosman and William Brown. Wouldn't it be more logical IF he were apprenticed FIRST when he was 15 years old and THEN later married and had children. That's how I had it written at 21:55, 25 September 2021‎ BEFORE you started making all those edits to the Early life section with his marriage and producing children BEFORE he was apprenticed at the age of 15. I already had in the Personal section that "Hall married Mary Leacock (Laycock) on January 7, 1748, at Christ Church in Philadelphia. The couple had four children." Before you THEN added that at 16:56, 28 September 2021 = duplicating what I had already written. AND it seems to me to be NOT in a logical spot to have him marry right after he was born. You rewrote my Personal section almost word for word at 16:56, 28 September 2021. I had already written that back at 11:49, 14 September 2021 with the edit summary of "expand" with an additional +7,064 characters.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you've already related these things to me, though not in as much detail as you are now. Your major revert is the last edit at this point. However, when you reverted you removed a number of other things that I had added, including the correct death date in the info-box, which still reads 'aged 0', along with some other items I've outlined above, including the fact that Franklin had 'purchased' the Gazette from Samuel Keimer, he didn't 'start' it, and that Hall had warned Franklin that the Gazette was losing its customers over the Stamp Act. The only thing the article says about the Stamp Act is that Franklin protested it – while in London. Nothing about Hall. There is an entire work (Harlan, 1974) devoted to Hall and the Townshend Act also. The only time the American Revolution is mentioned is in regards to Hall printing money during this time.
The article still needs work in terms of relating Hall's involvement and (strong) feelings towards taxation, the Revolution and his printing career as it involved publishing revolutionary thought, etc. This was one of Hall's main involvements with the Gazette. Currently the article primarily mentions the generic aspects of Hall's life, that he worked as a printer in England, then with Franklin, had business dealings, published documents and paper money, got married, had children etc. The work book discovery is interesting, btw. However, there is absolutely no coverage of Hall as a revolutionary printer, which is what primarily gives him notability. Most of the scholarly sources on Hall cover these things well. Working with Franklin, running a newspaper, printing money, etc, doesn't give him notability in terms of justifying a biography for Hall. If it were not for the revolution era, Hall would be just another printer. I'm trying to help in that regard. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well right now the article is clearly destabilised and is not exmplifying good article quality in that regard. I would suggest that User:Gwillhickers either assists Doug in the scope of this GAN or else we'll call time on the review as it seems clear that there may be some major aspects missing from the article and the recent slew of edits and the revert is making it also unsuitable. If you can't work on this together, I guess we'll call it a day on this GAN. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my addition of personal info that Doug had already entered certainly didn't help matters, and again, I apologize for that monumental error. I'm hoping we can get past that and simply include a few ideas to the text which should only involve a few statements. I'm about to make one correction in the lede, and support it with a statement in the text, with sources. After that I will make a few proposals, with sources/citations, here in Talk, and then bow out and let Doug handle matters from there, as I certainly don't want to see his time and efforts end with a failed GAN. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I should add there is no time limit as far as I'm concerned, between you take your time and come up with the best solution all round. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Final proposals

[edit]

As said, the article would do well to highlight a few revolutionary era sentiments and efforts on Hall's account.

  • Hall was not inclined to involve himself in controversy, and he did not want the Gazette to assume partisan proportions, but after the passage of the Stamp Act and the Townshend Act that changed.[1] The first reaction of Hall over the Stamp Act was that it might not be worthwhile to continue the Pennsylvania Gazette at all.[1] We should also mention that Hall expressed concern to Franklin that the Gazette was losing its customers because of the Stamp Act.[1] Hall was strongly opposed to the passage of the Townshend Acts, and though its provisions did not threaten his printing operations as much as the Stamp Act, his reaction to it as a patriot printer was just as virulent.[2]
  • Through the Gazette Hall published John Dickinson's Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania: To the Inhabitants of the British Colonies during the course of several issues. Dickinson's Letters voiced strong sentiment against both the Stamp and Townshend Acts and British colonial policy overall.[3]

Below are some sources that cover these items and other such events well.  Good luck. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b c Bailyn & Hench, 1981, p. 24
  2. ^ Harlan, 1974, p. 38
  3. ^ Harlan, 1974, p. 29

Sources:

  • Aldridge, Alfred Owen (February 15, 1962). "Benjamin Franklin and the "Pennsylvania Gazette"". Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 106 (1). American Philosophical Society: 77–81. JSTOR 985213.
  • Clark, Charles E.; Wetherell, Charles (April 1989). "The Measure of Maturity: The Pennsylvania Gazette, 1728-1765". The William and Mary Quarterly. 46 (2). Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture: 279–303. JSTOR 1920255.
  • Bernard Bailyn; John B. Hench, eds. (1981) [1980]. The Press & the American Revolution. Boston : Northeastern University Press (Originally published: Worcester, Mass. : American Antiquarian Society). ISBN 978-0-9303-50307.
  • Cochrane, James Alkman (1964). Dr. Johnson's printer : the life of William Strahan. London : Routledge & K. Paul.
  • Harlan, Robert D. (First Quarter 1974). "David Hall and the Townshend Acts". The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America. 68 (1). The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Bibliographical Society of America. JSTOR 24302418.
  • Isaacson, Walter (2003). Benjamin Franklin: An American Life. New York: Simon & Schuster.


  • @Gwillhickers: If you want to put those proposals above in the article, I believe they would be improvements. I have some additional references that support John Dickinson's Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania: To the Inhabitants of the British Colonies. Then I will have the reviewer look it over and aim for a promotion to Good Article. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Coldwell: Thanks. – I keep coming across interesting items while looking into other things.  'DYK' William Strahan was providing Hall with steady updates on British governmental affairs, before the revolution of course, (e.g.developments preceding the passage of the Stamp Act) <Frasca, 2006, p. 138> which Hall published in the Gazette? While Franklin was in London many thought he was complicit in promoting the Stamp Act, <Isaacson, pp. 224-225><Frasca, 2006, pp. 140-141> so Franklin embarked on a letter writing campaign defending himself, and that Hall also published (some, all?) of the letters he received in the Gazette, <Isaacson, pp. 226-227> which ultimately helped to exonerate Franklin, <Frasca, 2006, p. 154> at least in the eyes of most. I haven't checked to see if any of these letters to Hall are published in Franklin's papers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gwillhickers: Put in whatever you think improves the article and is needed to get the article to Good Article status. After you have done that then I will ping the reviewer that all issues have been resolved and he can look it over for possible promotion.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Doug Coldwell: — I am working on a fair sized paragraph that covers Hall, printers and the Revolution at this moment. In the mean time my I suggest that we move the Personal section, currently appended at the end of the article, so it follows the lede. We also might want to rename it, Family and personal life. This is often the practice in biographies overall. The reason being is that it gives the reader more of an insight into the person, first, and then this person is automatically present throughout the narrative as it touches on the person's public life, etc. Your call. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I moved the statement about Hall's birth to the Family and personal life section. Paragraph about Hall and the Revolution will be coming shortly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Coldwell and The Rambling Man: — Content about Hall and the American Revolution has been added to the article -- placed in its own subsection, American Revolution. Some additional sources have been added also. More info could be easily added, but this should suffice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minor issues

[edit]

@Doug Coldwell: After fixing the so called "harv errors", the Frasca and Thomas citations in the American Revolution section no longer link to their respective listings in the Bibliography. I've used such parameters in the cite book template for many years and they've never resulted in any error or other issues. In any case, the cites need to link to their listings in the bibliography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gwillhickers: The article has throughout the "sfn" template in use, as that is how I have always written my articles for 15 years. You should convert the references you are concerned about to using the {sfn| "last" |"date" |"page number"} template. By adding the "|ref=" parameter in the Source, it causes Harv Errors on the previously already set in place "sfn" references for Frasca and Thomas inline references. Besides using the sfn template is much easier. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gwillhickers: You should get the Harv Error Detection Tool from the Help Desk. It comes with instructions how to install on your PC.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the parameters didn't materialize into any sort of actual error or create any other issue, and the SFN format is not always easier to use, esp when sources have multiple last names, or don't include any last names or year dates, or when two sources have the same last name and year date but occur in different volumes, or when there are editor names only -- there the markup gets a bit tacky. However, I agree that the article should abide by one citation convention and will convert the sources in question. Thanks for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — Citations converted to SFN format in the American Revolution section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done @Gwillhickers: I had to revert your recent edits you did to the American Revolution section, as they entered in a lot of Harv Errors. Get the Harv Error Detection Tool from the Help Desk so you can troubleshoot your own mistakes in formatting references. That will make it a lot easier for everybody, since then you can see your mistakes and fix them immediately BEFORE you even publish your edits. Keep in mind that all reviewers have this tool and can see Harv Errors AND will say they have to be fixed.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gwillhickers: If you were to have the Harv Error Detection Tool, THEN you would see the mistakes you make as you make them. One example is here where you changed the date of the Thomas source from 1970 to 1874 which then causes the Harv Errors of all the previous "sfn" templates I had already in the article using the 1970 date. You can not just change a Source date to accommodate your reference you want to use -> the consequence is the Harv Errors THEN that show up. If you have the Harv Error Detection Tool installed on your PC THEN you will see this immediately and be able to correct yourself. I fixed that by putting in the "sfn" template reference for Frasca (page 9). This will give you an example how it should be done correctly. I have BOTH the 2006 Frasca book and the 1970 Thomas book on my desk, so can double check all this. What is more important however is that I have the Harv Error Detection Toll installed on alll three of my computers so I know this is correct and does NOT cause a Harv Error.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gwillhickers: Please now convert your references and your reference style to the sfn template style in the American Revolution section and then the article will have one citation convention. Keep in mind, don't just change dates on Sources I am already using and have put in the article a long time ago. You know now how to do it correctly, since I have given you an example.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Coldwell: Besides the Thomas citation, which others were causing the harv errors? I always use the original date of publication in my source/citations, not one of a particular later day publication. Sometimes a dated source is reprinted several times, but the original date is constant in all subsequent publications, and lets the reader know it is not, in this case, an actual 1970 work. Is there a way to indicate the original date in the SFN citation? I'd recommend using the original date in all the Thomas cites and have them link to an 1874 source, which can be found at archive.org or in google books. Also, there are a fair number of 'cite web' and 'cite news' sources that are not using the SFN convention. Since this is not a FA nomination, it's not required, however, it's still best to use one convention. In any case, I went to the help desk and didn't see the harv error tool in the side bar under 'Tools', or anywhere else on that page, and it didn't come up when I searched for 'harv error' in the search window there. I'll be happy to install it as soon as I can find it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I hope you are willing to get the Harv Error Detection Tool..."?
"I hope you are willing to convert your references to "sfn templates"?
I just finished trying to convert, and have already tried to get the tool, as you know, so these questions have already been answered. I also had removed the 'ref=' parameters from the sources that show an error as depicted here. Evidently you are giving us the results from beforehand. All the sfn citations, with the exception of Thomas, were working fine at this point. All that needed to be done at that point was just switch back the year date in the template for Thomas. A uniform citation convention is not required for GA, while we still need to be clear about the 'cite web' and 'cite news' templates that are using the 'ref name=' convention if you are insisting that SFN be employed throughout the article. There are seven such citations. I will ask for the tool since it seems to have disappeared from the help desk. In the mean time, feel free to convert the cites in question to SFN if you want to go forward sooner than I can ask for, receive, install and get adept with this tool. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gwillhickers: An advantage to using to sfn template is that it hyperlinks to the book title when you hold your mouse over the author's name in the reference AND THEN you don't have to go to the Sources's list. As an example, take your mouse to inline references #1, #2, and #3. Now go to the author's name and you will see it hyperlinks to the book title. Your method does NOT have this advantage. With your method you have to go to the Sources's list to see the book title, etc. You lose your concentration, each time you have to do this and it only slows up the writing process. The sfn template has it's advantages and I recommend to use this to speed up everything all the way around. By default then one can make a lot of Did You Know articles and a lot of Good Articles. I have made 500 Did You Know articles using this method and am working on getting by Christmas 200 Good Articles.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gwillhickers: You said, ...feel free to convert the cites in question to SFN if you want to go forward sooner =  Done that was easy and fun!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Doug, I've been 'hovering' for years, thanks. This also works with the standard citation style. In any case, thanks for converting things back to SFN. We still have seven 'cite web' and 'cite news' references that don't employ the SFN format, not that this matters much to me, but if it's really an issue for you, you might want to tend to them. Good articles and DYK nom's are not contingent on any particular citation style. I fail to see what advantage SFN has over the standard style. The SFN format doesn't readily allow for volume numbers, you have to go to the source listing to see that. As you know, there are two volumes for Thomas, 1874 - we're using vol 1. How would you go about distinguishing between two volumes using SFN? With the standard style, you simply designate this in the anchor and in the label after the pipe, so when you hover all that info is included. i.e.Name, Year, Vol number and Page number. You can also designate the original date in a standard citation, which will also show up when you hover. Do you know of a way to have a SFN citation display Name, Year, Original Year, Volume number and page number when you hover over the cite? It's easy using the standard style. In any case, the article looks great and I see no reason why it should not pass the GA review. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Doug Coldwell: — Actually there is a way to incorporate cite web and cite news into SFN. If the article is ever submitted for a FA review, all the cites will have to conform to one convention. We can't chose which ones will be ignored -- and I never stick a cite book/web/news template in the middle of the mark-up text, even though it's allowed. It makes it very difficult to navigate the markup text, esp when quotes and such are included in the template. But that's just my opinion -- I'm not pressing it. To give you an example I converted the Kany cites to SFN and put the respective cite web template in the Bibliography section. This is the parameter that you include in the cite web (or any other) template.   |ref={{sfnRef|Kany, 1963, American Philosophical Society}}
    See my latest edit. Revert if you feel like. Let me know if this causes an error with the Harv error detector. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This parameter will also allow you to designate Volume number, year, orig-year and page number and will distinguish between two sources with the same last name and year date, but with different volume numbers:
       |ref={{sfnRef|Thomas, 1970 [1874], Vol I, p. 123}}
       |ref={{sfnRef|Thomas, 1970 [1874], Vol II, p. 456}} -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw, Congratulations on your record breaking DYK 36 hours, and the number of articles you've created. I've created a good number of articles, including Blockade runners of the American Civil War, and build them to near completion. My overall editing is better represented in the volume of literature I have contributed, with over 100,000 edits. I've largely rewritten ultra high traffic articles like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ulysses S. Grant, War of 1812 and the American Revolutionary War, with all the very lengthy, often controversial, debate that accompanies this effort -- articles that get thousands of views – per day. Sometimes it takes weeks/many pages of debate, involving much research and reading, before one or two edits are added to the article. It's a nice change to create or build articles where nobody is trying to add some radical or inaccurate POV to the mix. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapping it up

[edit]

@Doug Coldwell: Thanks again for the help with the harv tool. The Kany citation, source, with its added sfn parameter in its template, outlined above, works fine also -- no harv error. I'd recommend treating the other cite web / news templates this way. With your consent, I'll tend to them in the same manner. This way, the article will be ripe for a FA nomination next. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)
Stray template moved to Bibliography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello both. I will try to get back to this tomorrow in my GAN review sweep (I have about 15 or so on the go at any one time). Assuming we have no further issues, I'd be happy to help take a look in more detail at what might be needed for FAC (having recently passed the 50-FA bar I think I'm a super-expert on anything by now, of course....!) so let's see. Good work, good collaboration, all good. I'll take a closer look at the article as soon as I can. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misc stuff

[edit]
@Doug Coldwell: Nice! The book is available for 'borrowing' and full viewing at archive.org:
On page 137 it mentions that Franklin had spoken of this work-book in various letters and writings, which is what clued Rosenbach about its existence. The book can be borrowed by the hour, and I've had it about ten minutes now. Will see how much we can use in the Hall biography here -- Hall is only mentioned twice in this book. It says that the work-book was printed by David Hall, (p. 196) which is puzzling, because the work-book is mostly a hand written record. Rosenbach's book is filled with dozens of illustrations of letters and such from a variety of people, including Franklin. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Hall_(printer)/GA1&oldid=1048446329"