Talk:Isaac Collins (printer)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Bungle (talk · contribs) 12:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this one. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Coldwell: This is going to be a longer review than I envisaged, so i'll post my current progress now, however be mindful that I have not yet exhaustively worked through the article in entirety, so I may well append additional comments. Feel free to query any individual point with me, whether due to misunderstanding or if clarity is needed. Some points may just need clarity over action. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for initial review. I'll start working on it. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bungle: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Coldwell: Hi, as noted this was a review "up to that point", so I may pick up other things when I read the rest. I made a few little tweaks just now. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bungle: All further issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added additional notes at the bottom. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Early life

Paragraph 1

Inconsistent use of either Collins' or Collins's (in multiple paragraphs)
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph 2

"who had a type of religion called "Inner Light"" - is it a "type" of religion? This is a question of curiosity, not a statement, though I am not wholly convinced myself.
Done I'm not a religious person, so not sure how to phrase this. Reworded to "... local Quakers, who had a religion called "Inner Light"." Will that work? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"listened to religious works of authors" - listened? I don't follow.
Done Changed to "read".--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"if they followed the traditions of the local Quakers" - this feels like half a sentence of something else, but the preceding words don't flow
Done - Reworded.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Collins's father had married again after Collins's birth mother had died" - awkward phrasing. Why not just something like: "After the death of his mother, his father remarried".
- The subsequent sentence about the death of his father and step mother's remarriage could probably be amalgamated into the above sentence too.
Done - Put all this into separate paragraph altogether.--Doug Coldwell (talk)

Paragraph 3

I am not keen on the first sentence structure, possibly due to the rather lengthy prose in parenthesis which seems longer than is usually expected. Maybe this should be two sentences or split with a semi colon?
Done Reworded accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "furnished/furnish" is the most appropriate verb to use here. It seems that more commonplace alternatives (provide/provided) would work better.
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- That then makes me wonder why it was necessary for him to be offered "basic schooling", when we already understand Collins had a primary school experience.
Done ce to "further" schooling.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Collins pledged for the printer training that he would stay away.." - why?
Done - Removed that sentence.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph 5

"He was twenty-one years old in 1767 when he finished his apprenticeship." - we already know he was released in 1766 aged 20, so do we need this repetition?
- If we do, we could start the next sentence with "Shortly after his 21st birthday, he moved.." instead of "Collins soon after his birthday in 1767.."
Done Reworded accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"He received 25 per cent" - I think it's just "percent" per MOS:PERCENT
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Also this sentence has a bit of bloat and could be condensed (e.g. "than other journeymen in the print shops he worked at" could just be "than other print shop journeymen" maybe?)
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph 6

"The Minutes.." - peculiar paragraph start, and unsure why minutes is in capital
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The Crukshank & Collins firm lasted from January until August." - awkward placement. Should that not go nearer the end of that section?
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"It started the business.." - "it"?
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure why "Work-House" is capitals, unless the actual name of whatever this is was called "The Workhouse" or similar. Is this the case, or is it like an institutional workhouse?
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should the italics just be on The Death of Abel on the last sentence, instead of the entirely inclusive of the author?
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mid Life

Probably no harm linking courtship and perhaps no need to follow with "relationship" as this is implied by a courtship
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The lived.." - they?
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"..old-fashion.." - I don't know if the source says it was old fashioned, but if the house was only 40 years old at the time, it doesn't like it would be

Done Source says, ... in an old-fashioned hipped-roof house ... --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Additional source says the same that it was an old-fashioned "hipped-roof" house that the Collins live in.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though "old fashioned" seems more like an opinion to me than an encyclopedic fact and hence I'd wonder if putting into quotation marks as per the original quote may be appropriate. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The house in 1893 still showed in large letters.." - may be interesting to mention that the house also exists in the present day, albeit as a pharmacy and also with the letters (google street view shows me this, if you can't find another ref elsewhere). With that the case, what is the significance of noting 1893?
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Works

This all seems very listcruft to me and I doubt they are individually notable enough to warrant inclusion as being referred to.
Done I left this section alone, as these are his works and they all have references. Not sure what you mean by your comment. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Open Library online shows Collins printed and published hundreds of titles. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Open Library is a project of the Internet Archive. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing them being legitimate works, however it seems an excessive amount of listed material when maybe just highlighting a few would have been appropriate, especially as the section notes that it is "some" of his works. Let me think about that one, though I don't know if it looks right as it stands (just maybe *too* excessive?). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Trimmed list.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

Many instances of unnecessarily repetitive inline citations on successive sentences.
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

The "see also" section notes other publishers which are referred to as a publisher in the parenthesis - why is Isaac Collins referred to as a printer above a publisher? This is not me saying anything is wrong, but is just a curious observation.
Done Don't understand the question on this one also. `-Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This JSTOR reference says that Professor Hixson (my main source) refers to Isaac Collins as a Quaker printer in New Jersey. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, this was a curious observation and just wanted to be sure that describing him as a printer was more relevant or appropriate than a publisher. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional

The lead seems quite minimal - can this be expanded at all?
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph on "mid life" had duplicated refs which I removed. However, when I load the ref itself, I struggle to see specifically where the prose is actually cited to? I can see the section on Collins but it doesn't mention about press freedoms or pseudonymous articles. Is the page correct on this or have I just completely overlooked something obvious?
Done -> White (1926) page 191 says for the rough OCR reading, ...legislative council demanded that he reveal the authorship of a pseudonymous article of a patriotic nature which appeared in the ....(unreadable)...... This Collins absolutely refused to do. It goes on to say in this very rough OCR reading, upon the guardian of the liberty of the press he was known as the not betray the trust imposed in him by reveal the name of the author except by the special permission of the author himself.

That's a head-masher that! The source has a page barely legible (in fact, it's completely ineligible) and the OCR text page you linked to seems to have the columns combined, so you have to filter out parts of another sentence. Is this the best source we have for this? If so, it may help to link to the OCR reading as well, but I otherwise concur with your paraphrasing and article inclusion that it is supported by the citation. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a snippet view of page 191. I believe the way I have said it and referenced it is correct and would like to stay with that. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood me. I said I concurred with your paraphrase (i.e. I agree with it) having made sense of the OCR and poor quality copies. The snippet confirms it too, indeed. I have no issue with how it's worded. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Family bible" section, I assume the "American colonies" means the Thirteen Colonies?
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optionally, could proofread link to Proofreading?
Done Sure! --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"one of the most textual accurate bibles" - this sounds a little odd. I don't know whether this should be "textually accurate" maybe? Could Textual criticism be a relevant article to link to on it? Another candidate is Textual criticism of the New Testament. Although they focus on the opposite of text accuracies, the subject matter still seems relevant.
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"It was the first American family bible published" - I am unsure how true this is. One of the sources seems to corroborate it, while another (New England Historic Genealogical Society 1892) doesn't seem to mention it at all. From my research, it may have been the first printed in New Jersey but possibly preceded by bibles from Isaiah Thomas and particularly Mathew Carey. Please can you check and advise on this, as it's quite a significant statement.
* Done I reworded it as "It was one of the the first American family bibles published." I typed in Google "Collins Bible" the first "Family Bible" printed in America and got many hits on a "1791 Isaac Collins Bible as the first Family Bible printed in America. I did run that fact on a DYK back in 2014 and nobody objected then. Will my rewording work?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually quite an interesting fact to research, with many sources seemingly being either unclear about who was first, or some going with Collins or someone else. What seems clear is that Collins was either the first or among/one of the first to print one, and thus I think if we go with something resembling the latter, we're safely covering all bases. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reference #52 (http://www.christianheritagemuseum.com/american.shtml) is a dead link. Can you find a replacement or add an archive.org parameter?
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Three thousand bibles were pre-sold with a 25% deposit even before the print job was started" - this is sourced to the above citation, though if we're keeping it with a valid citation, it may help to offer some context by way of what the cost/charge was, as 25% is meaningless without knowing the value
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trimming the works section. It may be further helpful if these were split into two columns to reduce the wasted space?
Done --I use 3 PCs and they display pretty on the amount of white space. Would like to leave it as is. Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a GA criteria so I won't push on it. I still think the white space is less than ideal but it's not going to hold up the review. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Coldwell: I have read to the end now and offered final comments above. I thought about merging these into the existing sections but that may have got a bit messy so have put them separately. Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bungle: Thanks for the additional issues. I am presently working on another GAN review and will get to this one next. Thanks for your patience.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bungle: All additional issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Coldwell: Excellent! I just want to give it another quick read over and i'll let you know. I have made a few minor changes and clarified a few points above but nothing you need to action. Hopefully we can get this boxed off soon! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Coldwell: I have just gone a quick copyedit picking out a few little things that didn't require interaction on here. This is a really interesting article about a historical figure with a lasting legacy and it is, in my view, a good article. The only other thing i'd like you to consider is whether, for the purposes of date chronology, the "bible" section should be before "late life", as it would probably work better here and be consistent with how biographical articles tend to be. It's significant enough for its own section, though maybe not following notes about his end of life. Besides that, well done on it and thanks for your patience during the review! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- @Bungle: Moved "Family bible" section up. Is that what you had in mind? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Doug Coldwell: Yes, as it probably makes more sense given it occupies that date period between mid and late. If we were looking at it from an FA perspective, i'd want to consider further the section titles (and sub sectioning) plus ordering, but it's fine for GA. Well done. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]