Talk:Urania's Mirror/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jamesx12345 (talk · contribs) 17:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this over the next few days. Jamesx12345 17:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! Thanks for taking it on. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "They were intended..." - this makes it sound as if they were never produced.
 * From having looked at a lot of the cards, it appears that they might have been published unpunched. The size of the holes to be punched is clearly indicated, but a lot of cards don't actually have holes in the centre of all the stars. I'll rephrase a bit, but it's quite late, so I'll do it in the morning. I'm not very good at copyediting when tired.
 * There are quite a few refs in the intro, some of which are used elsewhere. Moving some details, like the name of the publisher, to the body of the text and including more generic information in the intro would help with this.
 * A lot of that comes down to the Hingley ref having to be divided up by pages, of course. But you are right; I'll try to rearrange a bit, but again, in the morning.
 * Jehoshaphat Aspin appears to be notable enough to get a redlink.
 * Done. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Samuel Leigh (bookseller) can be linked, and I would also add constellations in its first instance.
 * Done. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "While he had several notable sons..." - ref 3 appears twice in that sentence.
 * You are right. I suspect I was rearranging clauses between sentences, and removed an intervening cited fact. Fixed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The gallery is nice (great job with the pictures!) The full page size is still less than 900kB, but will take 2 minutes to load on a 56kbps dial-up connection. The number of people affected is undoubtedly very small, however.
 * I suspect the dial-up issue is mitigated by the bulk of the images being quite low on the page, so the text will load first, and will likely take a couple minutes to read. If it becomes an issue, I could always shrink the gallery a little. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Putting the Constellations depicted section into columns would make better use of space.
 * Good point; I'll fix that in the morning. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a usable picture like this to illustrate the way the cards are presented? Also this and this.
 * As you may have noticed, I'm doing the restorations of the images. They're from LoC copies with colourboxes, so the colours as reproduced are reasonably accurate. As such, I can say categorically that the first and third link are quite inaccurate reproductions, and I think the second is slightly inaccurate since the corners aren't rounded. In the first and third image, the title card is clearly not period - I think that's That is a bolded Times New Roman, the default font in Photoshop, and they have far, far bigger borders around a very poor-quality copy of the image. I also don't believe the artwork depicted on the back of the cards is original, that appears to be a more modern zodiac; these were astronomy cards, not astrology (and would be punctured full of holes, so there's no point).
 * I suspect getting an accurate version, while ideal, runs up against the problem that copies are quite rare (indeed, the reason there's no lead image is because I've been hoping to find a decent copy of the box lid, but can't). However, it would be trivial to produce an uncropped version of one or more cards that would show the wider context. Background might be a bit funny-looking as the LoC's background is a strange textured thing - corkboard, maybe - but that's manageable. I could always just darken it a bit.  Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok. An uncropped image would provide a bit of context, if that is reasonably straightforward. I hadn't realised that those were poor quality imitations. It might be easier to get hold of a picture of the reprint, but I don't know what the copyright status is on something like that. Jamesx12345 16:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

A few final points before I pass it:


 * A note under that gallery to say that this is an incomplete selection of cards might clarify matters for some users.
 * I'm not sure about the way the constellations are described. Having two links, one of which is a redirect to the same article, seems a bit odd, and "a.k.a." could be replaced with "now known as," or something to that effect.

Other than that, it's looking great. Jamesx12345 16:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wasn't quite sure how best to do that myself. I'm running out of the house now, will probably just remove the second link in all cases when I get back.
 * As for the gallery, is giving the number for the plates in the captions not sufficient?
 * I think it might help a small fraction of users, but that said, it doesn't really matter. As an alternative Gallery could be changed to Selected plates. Jamesx12345 19:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I should probably note I haven't finished copyediting the lead, but that will definitely happen regardless. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. I can always change it back once the set's complete. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * All done now. Thanks for the quick responses. Jamesx12345 18:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've finished copyediting the lead. I think all facts in it now appear later in the article, should I remove the references? Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)