Talk:Thomas Bewick/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) 21:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to follow over the next day or so.

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Life

"In 1786, with a position that brought him reasonable financial security ...". I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at with that "with a position that brought him financial security". What position? Do you mean that by 1786 he was financially secure and could therefore afford to marry?

Yes, your wording is miles better.

"... along with a stiff paragraph at the end of the Preface". What's a "stiff paragraph"? And why is "Preface capitalised?

said 'paragraph of explanation', rm caps.

"Bewick immediately started work on the second volume, Water Birds, but the disagreement over authorship led to a final split with Beilby, Bewick showing his inability to control his feelings and resolve issues quietly, and the partnership ended, turbulently and expensively, leaving Bewick with his own workshop." That sentence needs to be split.

done.

"Bewick brought out the second volume, Water Birds, in 1804, without Beilby ..." Isn't it obvious that Beilby wasn't involved from what's gone before?

you're right. Changed to 'as the sole author...' - after all, he could have sought out another co-author to lend a hand with the work.

"In April 1827, the American naturalist and bird painter John James Audubon came to Britain to find a suitable printer for his enormous Birds of America, almost the opposite of Bewick's small woodcuts" In what way the opposite? And why are we comparing Audubon's book with Bewick's woodcuts?

removed the clause.

"He had wished to encourage the Northumbrian smallpipes ..." Why "had wished", which implies that he didn't actually do it?

changed to 'He especially wanted...'

"Bewick had to pay the large sum of £20 in lawyer's fees ..." £20 doesn't seem like a large sum today, so maybe including an inflation-adjusted modern equivalent would be good.

What a good idea, done.

"He was buried in Ovingham churchyard, with his wife Isabella". Do we know when Isabella died?

1 February 1826. Added note.

Technique

It doesn't appear to be correct to imply, as this section does, that Bewick invented the technique of carving against the grain. Here's what the ODNB article says: "Often incorrectly credited with the invention of engraving on the end-grain of boxwood ....".

ce to avoid implication.

"This proved to be far superior, and has been the dominant method used since." Far superior to what? Is this really necessary, as the previous sentence has already explained that Bewick's technique allowed for greater detail. Dominant method since when?

removed; since Bewick's time.

A General History of Quadrupeds

"including anything from "Adive" to "Zorilla" Not sure about that "including everything". Everything?

said 'animals' instead.

"The book's coverage is erratic, including bats and seals, but not whales or dolphins." It seems unremarkable that whales or dolphins aren't included, as they're not quadrupeds.

removed.

A History of British Birds

"Many of the illustrations most frequently reproduced at the present day are vignettes and tailpieces at the bottoms of the pages of the original. I don't understand that sentence at all. What does "reproduced at the present day" mean? Where else would the vignettes and tailpieces have been if not on the pages of the original? Reproduced where?

rephrased; rm 'at the present day'; clarify. The point is that it was the additional images at the 'tails' of articles, not the main illustrations, of the birds.

References

Ref #33 is a raw link to a web page, but the source is actually the book itself, for which details ought to be given.

done.

Is the article still using text from the 1911 Britannica?

There's nothing to speak of, I've rewritten practically every line, but perhaps the attribution should survive in some form. I suspect you know how it might be better formatted for that purpose, or we could just remove it.

There's an excellent modern ODNB article that would be far better to use than that ancient Britannica used in ref #2. According to that article Bewick also engraved in metal (Beilby was a metal engraver after all) and "produced some of the finest provincial banknotes of his time, as well as many excellent trade cards and armorial bookplates."

replaced ref. Added mention of metal engraving in apprenticeship. Uglow implies that none of Bewick's banknote designs reached circulation, so am unsure whether to mention it explicitly; she does quote Bewick's own description of the preparation of banknote engravings by the workshop, though not explicitly by Bewick.

I believe I've done all the comments to date - many thanks for the perceptive reading which has certainly improved the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good to me now, congratulations on your new GA. Eric Corbett 15:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.