@
Doug Coldwell: This is going to be a longer review than I envisaged, so i'll post my current progress now, however be mindful that I have not yet exhaustively worked through the article in entirety, so I may well append additional comments. Feel free to query any individual point with me, whether due to misunderstanding or if clarity is needed. Some points may just need clarity over action. Bungle(
talk •
contribs)18:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
"who had a type of religion called "Inner Light"" - is it a "type" of religion? This is a question of curiosity, not a statement, though I am not wholly convinced myself.
Done I'm not a religious person, so not sure how to phrase this. Reworded to "... local Quakers, who had a religion called "Inner Light"." Will that work? --
Doug Coldwell (
talk)
18:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
"listened to religious works of authors" - listened? I don't follow.
"Collins's father had married again after Collins's birth mother had died" - awkward phrasing. Why not just something like: "After the death of his mother, his father remarried".
The subsequent sentence about the death of his father and step mother's remarriage could probably be amalgamated into the above sentence too.
Done - Put all this into separate paragraph altogether.--
Doug Coldwell (
talk)
Paragraph 3
I am not keen on the first sentence structure, possibly due to the rather lengthy prose in parenthesis which seems longer than is usually expected. Maybe this should be two sentences or split with a semi colon?
I don't think "furnished/furnish" is the most appropriate verb to use here. It seems that more commonplace alternatives (provide/provided) would work better.
That then makes me wonder why it was necessary for him to be offered "basic schooling", when we already understand Collins had a primary school experience.
"He was twenty-one years old in 1767 when he finished his apprenticeship." - we already know he was released in 1766 aged 20, so do we need this repetition?
If we do, we could start the next sentence with "Shortly after his 21st birthday, he moved.." instead of "Collins soon after his birthday in 1767.."
Also this sentence has a bit of bloat and could be condensed (e.g. "than other journeymen in the print shops he worked at" could just be "than other print shop journeymen" maybe?)
Unsure why "Work-House" is capitals, unless the actual name of whatever this is was called "The Workhouse" or similar. Is this the case, or is it like an institutional
workhouse?
"..old-fashion.." - I don't know if the source says it was old fashioned, but if the house was only 40 years old at the time, it doesn't like it would be
Fair enough, though "old fashioned" seems more like an opinion to me than an encyclopedic fact and hence I'd wonder if putting into quotation marks as per the original quote may be appropriate. Bungle(
talk •
contribs)19:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)reply
"The house in 1893 still showed in large letters.." - may be interesting to mention that the house also exists in the present day, albeit as a pharmacy and also with the letters (google street view shows me this, if you can't find another ref elsewhere). With that the case, what is the significance of noting 1893?
I am not disputing them being legitimate works, however it seems an excessive amount of listed material when maybe just highlighting a few would have been appropriate, especially as the section notes that it is "some" of his works. Let me think about that one, though I don't know if it looks right as it stands (just maybe *too* excessive?). Bungle(
talk •
contribs)19:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)reply
The "see also" section notes other publishers which are referred to as a publisher in the parenthesis - why is Isaac Collins referred to as a printer above a publisher? This is not me saying anything is wrong, but is just a curious observation.
As I say, this was a curious observation and just wanted to be sure that describing him as a printer was more relevant or appropriate than a publisher. Bungle(
talk •
contribs)19:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Additional
The lead seems quite minimal - can this be expanded at all?
The last paragraph on "mid life" had duplicated refs which I removed. However, when I load the ref itself, I struggle to see specifically where the prose is actually cited to? I can see the section on Collins but it doesn't mention about press freedoms or pseudonymous articles. Is the page correct on this or have I just completely overlooked something obvious?
That's a head-masher that! The source has a page barely legible (in fact, it's completely ineligible) and the OCR text page you linked to seems to have the columns combined, so you have to filter out parts of another sentence. Is this the best source we have for this? If so, it may help to link to the OCR reading as well, but I otherwise concur with your paraphrasing and article inclusion that it is supported by the citation. Bungle(
talk •
contribs)21:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)reply
I think you misunderstood me. I said I concurred with your paraphrase (i.e. I agree with it) having made sense of the OCR and poor quality copies. The snippet confirms it too, indeed. I have no issue with how it's worded. Bungle(
talk •
contribs)17:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)reply
In the "Family bible" section, I assume the "American colonies" means the
Thirteen Colonies?
"one of the most textual accurate bibles" - this sounds a little odd. I don't know whether this should be "textually accurate" maybe? Could
Textual criticism be a relevant article to link to on it? Another candidate is
Textual criticism of the New Testament. Although they focus on the opposite of text accuracies, the subject matter still seems relevant.
"It was the first American family bible published" - I am unsure how true this is. One of the sources seems to corroborate it, while another (New England Historic Genealogical Society 1892) doesn't seem to mention it at all. From my research, it may have been the first printed in
New Jersey but possibly preceded by bibles from Isaiah Thomas and particularly
Mathew Carey. Please can you check and advise on this, as it's quite a significant statement.
* Done I reworded it as "It was one of the the first American family bibles published." I typed in Google "Collins Bible" the first "Family Bible" printed in America and got many hits on a "1791 Isaac Collins Bible as the first Family Bible printed in America. I did run that fact on a DYK back in 2014 and nobody objected then. Will my rewording work?--
Doug Coldwell (
talk)
21:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)reply
This is actually quite an interesting fact to research, with many sources seemingly being either unclear about who was first, or some going with Collins or someone else. What seems clear is that Collins was either the first or among/one of the first to print one, and thus I think if we go with something resembling the latter, we're safely covering all bases. Bungle(
talk •
contribs)17:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)reply
"Three thousand bibles were pre-sold with a 25% deposit even before the print job was started" - this is sourced to the above citation, though if we're keeping it with a valid citation, it may help to offer some context by way of what the cost/charge was, as 25% is meaningless without knowing the value
@
Doug Coldwell: I have read to the end now and offered final comments above. I thought about merging these into the existing sections but that may have got a bit messy so have put them separately. Thanks. Bungle(
talk •
contribs)16:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Doug Coldwell: Excellent! I just want to give it another quick read over and i'll let you know. I have made a few minor changes and clarified a few points above but nothing you need to action. Hopefully we can get this boxed off soon! Bungle(
talk •
contribs)17:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Doug Coldwell: I have just gone a quick copyedit picking out a few little things that didn't require interaction on here. This is a really interesting article about a historical figure with a lasting legacy and it is, in my view, a good article. The only other thing i'd like you to consider is whether, for the purposes of date chronology, the "bible" section should be before "late life", as it would probably work better here and be consistent with how biographical articles tend to be. It's significant enough for its own section, though maybe not following notes about his end of life. Besides that, well done on it and thanks for your patience during the review! Bungle(
talk •
contribs)20:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Doug Coldwell: Yes, as it probably makes more sense given it occupies that date period between mid and late. If we were looking at it from an FA perspective, i'd want to consider further the section titles (and sub sectioning) plus ordering, but it's fine for GA. Well done. Bungle(
talk •
contribs)20:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Doug Coldwell: This is going to be a longer review than I envisaged, so i'll post my current progress now, however be mindful that I have not yet exhaustively worked through the article in entirety, so I may well append additional comments. Feel free to query any individual point with me, whether due to misunderstanding or if clarity is needed. Some points may just need clarity over action. Bungle(
talk •
contribs)18:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
"who had a type of religion called "Inner Light"" - is it a "type" of religion? This is a question of curiosity, not a statement, though I am not wholly convinced myself.
Done I'm not a religious person, so not sure how to phrase this. Reworded to "... local Quakers, who had a religion called "Inner Light"." Will that work? --
Doug Coldwell (
talk)
18:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
"listened to religious works of authors" - listened? I don't follow.
"Collins's father had married again after Collins's birth mother had died" - awkward phrasing. Why not just something like: "After the death of his mother, his father remarried".
The subsequent sentence about the death of his father and step mother's remarriage could probably be amalgamated into the above sentence too.
Done - Put all this into separate paragraph altogether.--
Doug Coldwell (
talk)
Paragraph 3
I am not keen on the first sentence structure, possibly due to the rather lengthy prose in parenthesis which seems longer than is usually expected. Maybe this should be two sentences or split with a semi colon?
I don't think "furnished/furnish" is the most appropriate verb to use here. It seems that more commonplace alternatives (provide/provided) would work better.
That then makes me wonder why it was necessary for him to be offered "basic schooling", when we already understand Collins had a primary school experience.
"He was twenty-one years old in 1767 when he finished his apprenticeship." - we already know he was released in 1766 aged 20, so do we need this repetition?
If we do, we could start the next sentence with "Shortly after his 21st birthday, he moved.." instead of "Collins soon after his birthday in 1767.."
Also this sentence has a bit of bloat and could be condensed (e.g. "than other journeymen in the print shops he worked at" could just be "than other print shop journeymen" maybe?)
Unsure why "Work-House" is capitals, unless the actual name of whatever this is was called "The Workhouse" or similar. Is this the case, or is it like an institutional
workhouse?
"..old-fashion.." - I don't know if the source says it was old fashioned, but if the house was only 40 years old at the time, it doesn't like it would be
Fair enough, though "old fashioned" seems more like an opinion to me than an encyclopedic fact and hence I'd wonder if putting into quotation marks as per the original quote may be appropriate. Bungle(
talk •
contribs)19:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)reply
"The house in 1893 still showed in large letters.." - may be interesting to mention that the house also exists in the present day, albeit as a pharmacy and also with the letters (google street view shows me this, if you can't find another ref elsewhere). With that the case, what is the significance of noting 1893?
I am not disputing them being legitimate works, however it seems an excessive amount of listed material when maybe just highlighting a few would have been appropriate, especially as the section notes that it is "some" of his works. Let me think about that one, though I don't know if it looks right as it stands (just maybe *too* excessive?). Bungle(
talk •
contribs)19:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)reply
The "see also" section notes other publishers which are referred to as a publisher in the parenthesis - why is Isaac Collins referred to as a printer above a publisher? This is not me saying anything is wrong, but is just a curious observation.
As I say, this was a curious observation and just wanted to be sure that describing him as a printer was more relevant or appropriate than a publisher. Bungle(
talk •
contribs)19:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Additional
The lead seems quite minimal - can this be expanded at all?
The last paragraph on "mid life" had duplicated refs which I removed. However, when I load the ref itself, I struggle to see specifically where the prose is actually cited to? I can see the section on Collins but it doesn't mention about press freedoms or pseudonymous articles. Is the page correct on this or have I just completely overlooked something obvious?
That's a head-masher that! The source has a page barely legible (in fact, it's completely ineligible) and the OCR text page you linked to seems to have the columns combined, so you have to filter out parts of another sentence. Is this the best source we have for this? If so, it may help to link to the OCR reading as well, but I otherwise concur with your paraphrasing and article inclusion that it is supported by the citation. Bungle(
talk •
contribs)21:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)reply
I think you misunderstood me. I said I concurred with your paraphrase (i.e. I agree with it) having made sense of the OCR and poor quality copies. The snippet confirms it too, indeed. I have no issue with how it's worded. Bungle(
talk •
contribs)17:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)reply
In the "Family bible" section, I assume the "American colonies" means the
Thirteen Colonies?
"one of the most textual accurate bibles" - this sounds a little odd. I don't know whether this should be "textually accurate" maybe? Could
Textual criticism be a relevant article to link to on it? Another candidate is
Textual criticism of the New Testament. Although they focus on the opposite of text accuracies, the subject matter still seems relevant.
"It was the first American family bible published" - I am unsure how true this is. One of the sources seems to corroborate it, while another (New England Historic Genealogical Society 1892) doesn't seem to mention it at all. From my research, it may have been the first printed in
New Jersey but possibly preceded by bibles from Isaiah Thomas and particularly
Mathew Carey. Please can you check and advise on this, as it's quite a significant statement.
* Done I reworded it as "It was one of the the first American family bibles published." I typed in Google "Collins Bible" the first "Family Bible" printed in America and got many hits on a "1791 Isaac Collins Bible as the first Family Bible printed in America. I did run that fact on a DYK back in 2014 and nobody objected then. Will my rewording work?--
Doug Coldwell (
talk)
21:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)reply
This is actually quite an interesting fact to research, with many sources seemingly being either unclear about who was first, or some going with Collins or someone else. What seems clear is that Collins was either the first or among/one of the first to print one, and thus I think if we go with something resembling the latter, we're safely covering all bases. Bungle(
talk •
contribs)17:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)reply
"Three thousand bibles were pre-sold with a 25% deposit even before the print job was started" - this is sourced to the above citation, though if we're keeping it with a valid citation, it may help to offer some context by way of what the cost/charge was, as 25% is meaningless without knowing the value
@
Doug Coldwell: I have read to the end now and offered final comments above. I thought about merging these into the existing sections but that may have got a bit messy so have put them separately. Thanks. Bungle(
talk •
contribs)16:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Doug Coldwell: Excellent! I just want to give it another quick read over and i'll let you know. I have made a few minor changes and clarified a few points above but nothing you need to action. Hopefully we can get this boxed off soon! Bungle(
talk •
contribs)17:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Doug Coldwell: I have just gone a quick copyedit picking out a few little things that didn't require interaction on here. This is a really interesting article about a historical figure with a lasting legacy and it is, in my view, a good article. The only other thing i'd like you to consider is whether, for the purposes of date chronology, the "bible" section should be before "late life", as it would probably work better here and be consistent with how biographical articles tend to be. It's significant enough for its own section, though maybe not following notes about his end of life. Besides that, well done on it and thanks for your patience during the review! Bungle(
talk •
contribs)20:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Doug Coldwell: Yes, as it probably makes more sense given it occupies that date period between mid and late. If we were looking at it from an FA perspective, i'd want to consider further the section titles (and sub sectioning) plus ordering, but it's fine for GA. Well done. Bungle(
talk •
contribs)20:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)reply