Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Barley/archive1
- 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 by SandyGeorgia 22:24, 6 June 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): User:TwilligToves
| Toolbox |
|---|
Taking the leap and nominating one of the articles that I started and have edited off-and-on for a while now. A short little bio on a "somewhat remarkable" Elizabethan music publisher who apparently isn't worthy of Grove ODNB. My biggest worry on this one is whether I adequately explained the confusing nature of Elizabethan printing patents in a concise manner. Thanks in advance for the reviews. BuddingJournalist 05:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Looks like a very good article overall. There is ambiguity at certain points, but I assume that is because of the limitations of the avaliable sources. Richard Byrd is a disambiguation link, and none of the articles there are about a 1500s composer. Will do a full read-through, and probably offer my support afterwards. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, thanks for catching that. Should be William Byrd not Richard. Doh. Look forward to your review. BuddingJournalist 05:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Caught only a few things during a full read-through:
The captions should have periods because they are full sentences.Drapers' Company: "and other drapers/booksellers joined the company within a few years so that they could continue their trade." Any way that the slash could be removed, such as using a hyphen or saying "drapers and booksellers" or similar?Stationers' Company: "From 1606 to 1613, less than half of the music books published from 1606 to 1613 recognized Barley's rights on the imprint." Would be good to see that re-worded without the repetition.Giants2008 (17-14) 23:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, Giants.
- They're not actually full sentences so they don't merit full stops.
- changed to "draper-booksellers"
- Heh, nice catch. Removed one of the instances of the time period. BuddingJournalist 00:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Caught only a few things during a full read-through:
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Lovely article that tells an interesting life story. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A well-written and impressively-researched article; finding information on an Elizabethan music publisher not covered by Grove is no easy task, and this article pulls it off in a polished manner. Ricardiana (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support...I actually meant to say ODNB above, not Grove (heck, I even cite Grove, so I don't how I managed to say Grove up there...). :) TwilligToves (talk) 09:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional Support - I endorse the positive comments above. Two small things:
note 1 says "This notion has been discredited by more modern scholarship." I'd welcome a bit more detail. Would that be Lavin and/or Johnson?
"privileged persons" (privilegiati) at Oxford University is a status with a precise meaning that won't be understood by most readers, and was perhaps less elevated than they might imagine. An explanation is here
- William Avery (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review.
- Lavin was the first to challenge this view. Johnson, Grove all agree with his viewpoint. I tweaked the note a bit...is the result OK?
- I added a short sentence clarifying Oxford's notion of "privileged persons" and added your link as a source. Clark, too, has a great explanation on this, even though it's over a century old source. TwilligToves (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Super, thanks! William Avery (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review.
Image review: no portraits (nobody bothers what a publisher looks like, unless he was patronised by kings). The two images used in this article are of the two works Barley has published, and are in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I thought the article was well-written and easy to follow. Good work! Karanacs (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.