Talk:Vincent Figgins

Post-GA comments
These aren't unambiguously issues - more like observations/ideas which you may or may not agree with. Just wanted to throw them out there in case they're helpful:


 * There's some language that's arguably a little editorializing or more colorful than one might expect for an encyclopedia article, such as Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of Figgins' career was..., Under the pyrotechnics of Figgins' display faces,...
 * There are a lot of images toward the end, some of marginal relevance. You might consider cutting a couple. e.g. is it really helpful to the reader to see what the library containing most of his remaining materials looks like?
 * the "Black Man" quote is quite long. I think at least the first two sentences could be cut without the reader missing much.
 * the list of sources at the beginning of the "Career" section is pretty unusual, though I suppose it is helpful to be able to refer to those sources by name in the remainder of the section. I don't actually have a suggestion here, I guess it just made me wonder why I've never seen this device used in other articles.
 * there are a couple places where a short gloss for a technical term might be helpful in saving some readers from having to click a wikilink (e.g. in the "Typefaces" section, when you first mention slab-serif fonts). Though obviously it's a trade-off depending on what proportion of the audience you think will already be familiar with these terms.
 * the intro is pretty short relative to the body. You might consider expanding it a bit, perhaps to mention his political career, or to go into a little more detail on his typeface designs.

Colin M (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Rewrite needed.
Ok, not sure what is going on here, but this article reads like a poorly written school essay, not a Wikipedia article. It deviates greatly from established Wikipedia norms and quality standards.

First, it could use substantial condensing. There is a great deal here which is of questionable notability, and there is a great deal that is perhaps notable, but is highly verbose. The extensive quotations may be able to be trimmed down to salient content as well.

Second, it needs substantial reorginisation. For example, Wikipedia articles should not lead off with a declaration of "main sources" (which is bizarrely placed under the "Career" section for some unknown reason). Instead, only standard citations placed at the end of the article should be used.

Also misplaced under the "Career" section is the subject’s life history, including birth, marriage, and children. This could be moved to another section, but family info in this case probably lacks the notability to be included in the article. Family are not routinely discussed in Wikipedia biographies, unless they make an extraordinary impact on the subject…particularly if they make a specific impact that alters career paths (e.g. subject went to sea after the tragic death of his wife and daughter) or affects the quality or achievements for which the subject is notable.

These are just a few examples of problems in the article which need addressed. A disinterested 3rd party or parties need to extensively edit or rewrite this article to bring it up to Wikipedia standards.

June 29, 2024


 * Obviously I disagree (as the editor who reviewed this for GA status), but if you think it doesn't meet the GA criteria, you should feel free to initiate a reassessment (but just boldly removing the GA template is out-of-process, hence why your edit was reverted).
 * Your suggestion about having a separate section covering his family is a good one, and I see it's already been adopted.
 * As for the list of sources, I did mention that in my comments above. It's unusual, but I think it's useful in this case because it facilitates in-text attribution. Though perhaps it should also be moved into a separate section now, since we refer to these sources by name in multiple sections, not just within "Career".
 * I do agree that some of the quotations could be trimmed or replaced with paraphrases, and I mentioned as much above, but I don't think this represents a violation of the GA criteria. Colin M (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your detailed feedback and apologies for my delay replying. I do appreciate you taking the time to give some detail about what concerned you. I agree with you on balance that the section on his life belonged more in a separate section, and have broken it out. I also recognise your point that the article has a lot of text but I hope it's clearly written, organised and signposted. I see Colin has written a reply which has the same good sense as his GA review. Introducing the sources was a late decision: I realised that although there's lots of articles and short references to Figgins, the three really key summaries of his career are these ones, written within Figgins' lifetime by people who knew him well or based on information from his grandson, and I realised late on that I was spending a lot of time explaining what they are in random places in the article, breaking into the subject of a paragraph and making the structure a bit shapeless. I felt it made sense to introduce them upfront so I can say "according to Hansard" and people will know what I'm talking about. Regarding the length...well, I tried to make the article comprehensive. I came to Figgins from being interested in his font designs, but he could be of interest to people interested in graphic design, social history of mass literacy and posters, industrial history and industrial relations, local government and politics, maybe colonialism too as he accumulated types for different parts of the world the British Empire had contact with. He had a long career at a pivotal point for printing as it moved from printing books to posters. There's a lot of angles there. It's a GA and GAs are supposed to be comprehensive. The article isn't in any way a grab-bag, though: I have a lot of material like passing mentions which I couldn't integrate into the article. I may post some of it on the talk page as suggested directions for future expansion of the article for anyone interested. While I realise responses to anything are personal, one thing I do disagree with very strongly is the "Family are not routinely discussed in Wikipedia biographies, unless they make an extraordinary impact on the subject." comment. That's the style of writing that makes "great man" or "inspiring and edifying lives" books. And frequently ignores how much "great men" were supported by their wives! Although that's not very relevant here. I mean, the article doesn't write much about Figgins' relationship with his family, about which there's very little material! It barely does more than name his wife and some of his kids. I read those books when I was a kid too and loved them, but that isn't quite the job of Wikipedia articles, which are more organised as history for better or worse. As to what you can do if you think the article has major flaws, as Colin quite rightly says you can request a GA reassessment (or request an edit for another editor to take a look at your proposed changes, I guess). Blythwood (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at College of Staten Island/City University of New York supported by GLAM/MoMA and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)