Talk:John Doubleday (restorer)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 16:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What an interesting topic. Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking on the review, J Milburn. Already appreciating your thorough copyediting. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm being oversensitive, but would "artisan" or "craftsperson" be a possible gender-neutral alternative to "craftsman"?

Changed to craftsperson.

"A new base disc of plain glass, polished outside and matte inside, was inscribed with a diamond "Broke Feby 7th 1845 Restored Sept 10th 1845 By John Doubleday."" Is "inscribed with a diamond" ambiguous? I think I may have initially misunderstood. Is the full stop on the engraving? If so, nothing needs to be done; if not, it should probably be outside the quotemarks.

Changed to "diamond-engraved", and moved the period outside of the quotation. The period is in the source from which I took the quotation, but it's unclear whether or not it's part of the engraving itself.

""cleverness" "sufficient" I struggle with this quote-straight-into-quote format. How about adding "that were" in the middle?

Good point, not sure why I did that. Added an ellipsis instead.

"Doubleday's restoration would remain for more than 100 years, until the vase was restored again in 1948" I wonder if we have the name of the next restorer?

Added.

"though making type" I assume you mean through?

Yep. Fixed.

I made a start on italicising some publication names, but self-reverted. If you agree with me that this is a good change, I'll leave it to you to tidy up the edges!

Good idea, done.

I wonder if categories for his (probable) year of birth and probable origin in New York are appropriate?

Added Category:People from New York (state). (It's unclear whether he's also from NYC.) Let's hold off on his year of birth for the moment; I think 1799 is actually more likely (backdating from his obituary which says died "in his fifty-seventh year" gives a January 1799 to January 1800 birthday range), although other sources give different years. Waiting to hear back from the guy who wrote the NPG entry on Doubleday (he's on vacation at the moment) before changing it.

Would Category:Coiners and/or Category:Medallists be appropriate?
Category:Antiquarians? Category:Typesetters?

Added all.

Really interesting little article. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, J Milburn. Incorporated almost all your suggested edits, as commented upon above. The only of your edits I've reverted are those re: logical quotation. The punctuation marks inside quotation marks are part of the original sources, so I've moved them back inside. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some further tweaks and I'm now ready to promote. Doubleday seems like quite a character; I've really enjoyed learning a little about him! Josh Milburn (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I struggled a little to find the appropriate category; I went with "Artists and architects", because I couldn't see a "museum studies" (or similar) section. Feel free to move it if you prefer! Josh Milburn (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, J Milburn! I agree that "Artists and architects" seems the most appropriate of the given options. Is there anything further you would suggest before taking this to FAC? --Usernameunique (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd look closely at the reference list; quibbles about formatting can end up eating up FAC time, as I'm sure you realise. The article's fairly short, but you do have sourced discussion about how little is known about him! — Preceding unsigned comment added by J Milburn (talk • contribs) 17:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point J Milburn, I'll make a point of going through the references before nominating this. It'll probably be a few months—need to track down two more sources, and I'd like to nominate Gevninge helmet fragment first anyhow—but I'll let you know when I do so. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2018 (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.