Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joseph Johnson (publisher)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.

Joseph Johnson (publisher)[edit]

Check external links

This article is about an important eighteenth-century publisher. WillowW and I have been working on it for a few months now. I'm pretty sure we've tracked down all of the reliable sources that have anything significant to say about Johnson and we think that the article meets the FA criteria. We look forward to hearing the thoughtful comments of the reviewers. Awadewit | talk 18:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review by Scartol and Markus Poessel

Comments:

First para, the sentence "His publications, which, in the words of his principal biographer emphasized "innovation and experimentation" and "the exotic rather than the domestic", covered a wide variety of genres and a broad spectrum of opinions on important issues." sent me into a spin. Something wrong with the commas there - one too many, or one too few, or just too much for one sentence to cope with.

Grammatically speaking, these commas are perfectly correct. I have just cut out the quotation to reduce the complexity of the sentence. Awadewit | talk 18:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's nothing technically wrong with them, but a set of em/en dashes might be useful to help the reader break down which items are grouped together: His publications – which, in the words of his principal biographer, emphasized "innovation and experimentation" and "the exotic rather than the domestic" – covered a wide variety of genres and a broad spectrum of opinions on important issues. ? (Note I would add another comma after "biographer".) – Scartol • Tok 12:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the comma I thought was missing Scartol, the one after "biographer". To me, and at first glance, the comma after "which," looks like the start of a parenthetical, so I was looking for the closing comma...and it didn't come. It's understandable, certainly, but not as readily so as it could be. Although Awadewit's already changed it anyway. Carre (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In "Formative friendships", the quotation ""had already acquired the character which he retained during life,—that of a man of great integrity, and encourager of literary men as far as his means extended, and an excellent judge of their productions"": the comma and emdash together like that looks odd; is that a typo, or is it in the source?

This punctuation is in the source - it was common at the time. Awadewit | talk 18:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<wince> dashes, sorry... spaced emdashes in "Informative texts" and also "Medical and scientific publications" - deliberate, or just missed em?

After enlarging the text twice over, I see that now. Fixed. Awadewit | talk 18:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not actionable, but the tables at the end don't line up at the top for me. Looks a little odd, that's all.

That's odd - they are supposed to "align top", as the code says. They look fine here. Feel free to try and fix them. Awadewit | talk 18:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is odd. The table on the right is about five pixels higher than the table on the left. I think I know how to fix this. --JayHenry (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's got it. Good work. Won't need to give Scartol the screenshots of it now :) Carre (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Carre (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I did a peer review of this dealie. Awadewit and Willow have been working on it for some time now – what more can I say? I expect there will come a time when they can just give proof of a certain number of edits to an article and it will automatically pass FA. =) Seriously, though, this article is well-written, comprehensive, etc etc. Wikipedia is lucky to have them on board. – Scartol • Tok 12:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly for the support and the compliment thingy, Scartol! ;) But I'm worried that we'll have to start editing anonymously so that our articles get judged impartially; we shouldn't be deprived of honest critique that might improve the article. :) Willow (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the peer review is for. Oh, you mean from other people. Yeah, okay. – Scartol • Tok 03:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support The quotes really help to illuminate the article. If I knew more, or were a living opponent of Johnson's, perhaps I would raise issues with certain interpretations of publisher Joseph Johnson's life but as a general reader it was a joy and an education. I have only two comments:

An early nineteenth-century biography states that "Mr. Johnson was now so well known, and had been so highly respected, that on this unfortunate occasion, his friends with one accord met, and contributed to enable him to begin business again". It looks like you quoted a complete sentence, so then shouldn't the period go inside the quotes? Or is it actually a sentence fragment.

There is more to the sentence - I just didn't include it because it wasn't relevant or interesting. Awadewit | talk 16:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quote by Maria Edgeworth in the Legacy section could be dated, and maybe the circumstances of it described or some such description.

Added. Awadewit | talk 16:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a request, but I'm selfishly hoping that after the Analytical Review reaches FA that you two might work on the Anti-Jacobin Review, which seems interesting. Anyways, great article.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Willow thought we should do that, too - for balance. However, I have a full plate with Jane Austen and Mary Shelley. Maybe next year? :) Awadewit | talk 16:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~I should note that I haven't read the entire article, but I still have a few comments.~~
I made one edit earlier here, but i am a little puzzled as to why it's Samuel Galton's and not just Samuel Galton? Also what Samuel Galton are we talking about? The link is to a disambiguation page.

I thought I had caught all of those! Fixed. Awadewit | talk 23:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~In the 1760's he seems to be quite successful on his own, but still decides to start a partnership with John Payne. Why?~~

I don't think we know. I could speculate for you personally, but I can't put any of that speculation into the article. :) Awadewit | talk 23:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson lost authors after the trial and published only 80 books in 1799, the lowest number of his career - 80 books is the lowest number of his career but he averaged around 20 to 30 new books per year. Somethings not right?

That is right. As it explains in "Publishing statistics", about half of Johnson's output was pamphlets and many were reprints, meaning they were not new. He would also have published books that were not new. So, in 1799, he published 80 books, but not all of those would have been new. Does that make sense? Awadewit | talk 23:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, I get it. Unfortunately the sources are not as precise as we could wish. I have made the first sentence vaguer (a noticeable decline in business) and added "according to Chard" in front of the "Publishing statistics" section so that it is clear that the material is from his/her work. Awadewit | talk 01:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense.....Of course if I wanted to be picky, I could say that it seems doubtful that he published 80 new books in his first year of publishing, and therefore it is still wrong that the 80 books in 1799 was the lowest of his career. But that is probably being too picky. --Peter Andersen (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say he published 80 new books in his first year of publishing? Awadewit | talk 00:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Peter Andersen (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am of course happy to Support (Also good luck with Analytical Review)--Peter Andersen (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would of course appreciate your helpful suggestions there as well! Your eagle eye caught that logical contradiction when no one else's had for months. :) Awadewit | talk 22:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might take a look at it tomorrow, although I am hesitant to step into that can of worms/hornet's nest (or whatever is a good English expression)--Peter Andersen (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reluctance, but the more calm discussions that are going on there, the better. You don't have to enter the already on-going dispute, you can just register your own opinion regarding the article. Awadewit | talk 23:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm disappointed that we don't see much of Johnson himself in the article, but as a "Life and Works of" it is very through and makes the best of the sources. Yomangani ^talk 00:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someday I'll publish something on the "just-discovered" papers and then we can spice up the page. :) Awadewit | talk 00:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.