Talk:James Davis (printer)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 22:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Working my way through the article, reading it several times over. In general the prose/spelling/grammar are all looking good. I will post any issues I find here. in this section. Shearonink (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In "Political career" section...Davis performed in many patriotic duties, should be Davis performed many patriotic duties.
 * In "External links" - James Javis -> James Davis
 * In "Early and family life" - in the Charleston, South Carolina. -> in the Charleston, South Carolina [harbor].
 * In "Printing career" - printing of paper money, promissory notes, -> should this be printing of paper money and promissory notes or ''printing of paper money (promissory notes)?
 * In "The North Carolina Magazine" section - and often contained articles on ancient history and reports about the Bishop. -> Who in the world is "the Bishop"? And this statement doesn't seem to be footnoted.
 * I can't seem to find the exact source for the statement about the Bishop, presumably the Bishop of London, so for now I'm 'hiding' that statement, source pending, and have added something similar instead: "contained extracts from theological publications taken from various English works and magazines." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In "Final days and legacy" - Davis' left a will -> Davis left a will
 * In the lead section:
 * Thereafter he went on serving as the official printer and the North Carolina justice of the peace.
 * This sentence doesn't quite make sense to me, I think it is missing some phrases, perhaps it should be something along the lines of
 * ''Thereafter he went on serving as the [colony's] official printer and the [a] North Carolina justice of the peace.
 * That is all the typo-type issues I could find. Once they are taken care of, this section will be a Yes.Shearonink (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * In general, this seems to be in-order. One thing I have found is that there are some duplicate Wikilinks. If there's a reason for that, let me know otherwise subsequent linkages that occur after the first should be rendered as just the word itself without a link. Shearonink (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Dup links fixed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a yes now that those have been fixed. Shearonink (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * Am impressed with the quality & quantity of references. Shearonink (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Yes. Shearonink (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Yes. Shearonink (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * I ran Earwig's copyvio tool and have found similarities between some of the phrasing between the article and a published MS thesis from UNC. Please refer to this usage of the tool. I am certain these various similarities are inadvertent but I do think the phrasing needs to be adjusted before I proceed any further with this review. Shearonink (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I changed some close paraphrasing of some general statements. The remaining highlighted phrases involves quotes, titles and very general phrases. If I've missed anything that needs addressing please bring it to my attention and I'll get right on it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree that many of the highlighted titles etc. cannot be considered problematic but I do think the following phrases need to be recrafted:
 * Nothing else is positively known about
 * he became the first printer to set up a
 * are known to exist, however.
 * died a wealthy man, leaving behind a great deal of property
 * Shearonink (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ran the tool and now it all comes out clean as the proverbial whistle. Nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Yes, pretty much. Shearonink (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * Yes, it does.Shearonink (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Neutral and dispassionate. Shearonink (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Quite stable, recently created, no edit wars. Shearonink (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * No issues that I could find. Shearonink (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Nicely-done. Relevant images, permissions all look good. Shearonink (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * As soon as 1A and 2D are taken care of (unless I find anything that has previously escaped my attention on any subsequent read-throughs) this GA Nom-Review will be a Yes/Pass. Shearonink (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * All the remaining issues you noted above have been attended to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to read through the article a few more times to make sure I haven't missed anything. Appreciate all your changes - unless I find something that I have missed I am sure this will be a GA.Shearonink (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have found some more typos on my last deep-dive/close read-through:
 * one in the lead section...
 * was needed in that state -> was needed in that colony. [NC was a colony at that point, not a state yet.]
 * one in the Printing career section...[a of]
 * Over a of thirty-three year period -> Over a thirty-three year period
 * a two-for-one in the Printing career section [two occurrences of the verb "was" in a row, my "fix" below is a mere suggestion + the title as delineated is in correct. I am fascinated by the fact that this "First Book" was a satire/parody of the Bible]


 * Another printing by Davis was, The First Book of the American Chronicles Times, was humorous text. -> Another printing by Davis — The First Book of the American Chronicles of the Times — was humorous text.
 * one in the North Carolina Gazette section...[stated/staRted]
 * the Gazette was stated up again -> the Gazette was started up again
 * Once these last typos are corrected, I will Pass James Davis (printer) into GA status. Shearonink (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * — ✅ — Typos fixed. Title corrected. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you have now corrected the title. As previously listed out in the article it simply did not exist. The article text is/was referring to The First Book of the American Chronicles of the Times by John Leacock (sometimes incorrectly credited to Samuel Adams):
 * as seen here in UPenn Library listing,
 * Vanderbilt Library listing, and
 * as seen on Page 640 of Transactions and Collections of the American Antiquarian Society, published in 1874.
 * On to the two "was"-es...Another printing by Davis was, The First Book of the American Chronicles of the Times, was humorous text.
 * Shouldn't that be rendered as something like...
 * Another printing by Davis The First Book of the American Chronicles of the Times was humorous text.
 * Shearonink (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * — ✅ -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Once again many thanks for your review. Could you close out this review template so it can be archived sometime soon? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops. Sorry about that, it's been a helluva day around here. Done. Shearonink (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)