Talk:William Barley/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hello, I will be reviewing this article. Check back soon for a full review! CarpetCrawler (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold

This article looks good, and I understand that it's very hard to find information on certain things in the first place. However, I have a few concerns.

- "Barley is probably the same William Barley who opened a branch office in Oxford. This action brought him into conflict with the authorities. Barley most likely relied on his assistant, William Davis, to run the Oxford shop while he maintained the business at St Peter upon Cornhill." I don't know, this seems like original research. And words like "probably" and "most likely" seem shady, as well. Do citations ten and eleven, which are later in the paragraph, cover those sentences? If so, you may want to cite them as well, because it makes it look like original research without them.

- "This is probably due to the Stationers' feud with the Drapers'; the Stationers' viewed the ability of non-members to enter works into the register as a special privilege." Does the book citation at the end of the paragraaph say that it's "probably" due to the feud?

- "Unable to rely on the protections and privileges of Morley's monopoly, Barley most likely came under increasing pressure from the Stationers' Company." Does citation 28 cover this?

- "In March 1612, one of Barley's servants died, possibly from plague." Does any citation cover this? If not, then remove it, because it's a little trivial in the first place if it doesn't have a citation.

When my concerns have been addressed, I will pass this article. Until then, I have placed this article on hold. I will give you seven days to address my concerns, and when you have done so, please leave me a message on my talkpage. Thanks, and good luck! CarpetCrawler (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responses:

No, this is not original research. Citation ten covers this. The phrasing here mirrors Johnson's hedge. "Probably" and "most likely" don't automatically signal original research, nor are they "shady". They signal scholarly doubt. There is no direct evidence that proves the two are one and the same, but they shared the same name at the same time, and the same occupation.
Yes. It's not a book, though; it's a journal article.
Yes.
It's covered by citation 34. I wouldn't exactly call it trivial, but I'm open to removing it, if necessary. Could you perhaps give more reasoning why you feel this is trivial?
Thanks for the review. BuddingJournalist 21:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I did not notice that you had responded to my queries! Well then, I really don't have any issues with the article, so I will pass it. It's very nicely written and sourced, you did a damn good job considering that this is probably an incredibly hard to research topic. Great work! CarpetCrawler^{message me} 10:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]