Talk:William Goddard (publisher)

Harv error?
— Aye Doug, haven't seen you around DYK in a while. In regards to this edit, I was just curious how the two sources in question, that were previously in 'cite book' format, posed any chance of a Harv Error, while the other sources in the Further reading section remain in 'cite book or 'cite journal' format. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have installed on my PC the "Harve Error Detection Tool" app that I obtained from the Help Desk years ago. I can not answer your question other than Hudak and Reese showed as Harve Errors in red letters on my PC. When I took them out, then no other Harve Errors showed. Recommend that you get this Harve Error Detection Tool from the Help Desk, that comes with instruction of installation. I have been real busy making Good Articles and now have 190. I am aiming for 200 by Christmas. Many of my latest Good Articles have been colonial printers. Gooddard could become a Good Article IF you submit GAN.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * — Well, since these sources don't pose any such problem in the actual article, I'd like to return them to their prior format because I want to maintain uniformity in the source listing, which happens to be a FA criteria, not that that matters much at this point. Anyway, I didn't realize your were a colonial printer buff also!  Yes, I created the Goddard article back in 2010 and just recently have added other material, sources, etc, to it.  Have just created the Early American publishers and printers article on Sept 22 (after building it in my sandbox for more than a week prior to that). While the article touches on 'printing' per se, its focus is on how colonial publishers (esp colonial newspapers) and printers effected colonial American politics and how these things were fundamental in publicly opposing colonial taxation, uniting the colonies, and bringing about the revolution. e.g. Patriots like Samuel Adams routinely wrote revolutionary literature in the various colonial newspapers in New England. I just submitted it to DYK a couple of days ago, yet it still needs a few topics better explained or expanded on. I'll look in on your GA nominations from time to time and offer any help if possible. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. Go ahead and put back those books into the prior format for uniformity. Yes, I am a lot into colonial printers and have these ILL books on my desk now for the Good Articles I am working on about colonial printers. My wife and I have visited Colonial Williamsburg many times and have been in the print shop several times. I have a few thousand pictures of Colonial Williamsburg. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It so happens that several of the colonial printers listed under Other colonial printers are articles I created and am now upgrading to become Good Articles. My latest GA review has been on David Hall.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I figured out why the other sources in the Further reading section didn't show up in the Harve Error detection. They have an extra parameter of "|ref=wolley1894" and similar. If you were to put that into the two you are going to put back, THEN it will not show up as a Harve Error.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S. Still recommend that you get the Harve Error Detection Tool from the Help Desk - if you don't already have it. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * — Okay, thanks for the heads up on the 'ref=' link. I have, what I like to think is, an impressive collection of books in my library. Finding information on any given printer, with the exception of people like Benjamin Franklin, however, is a time consuming process. Most of the sources I've used for the William Goddard (publisher) and Early American publishers and printers articles I've found on-line -- usually at Jstor and archive.org. I've dug up a nice selection of journals from these sources, which as you must know, are more specific in their scope. You might find some additional useful sources in the Bibliography of the publishers and printers' article. Re: Williamsburg. I'm impressed. I've been living in California for more than 30 years now, but I grew up in up-state (central) New York and I sort of kick myself in the head for not visiting all the historic sites that were near by, including Oriskany and Saratoga, Fort Ticonderoga, Fort Ontario, etc. I'll check out the harv error detector. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I lived in San Diego, Calfornia for 20 years. I was a real estate broker in the 1980s. You have e-mail.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Main article
[Note: this section was added to and then subsequently deleted from the weeks-since-completed first GA review page; it should have been on the article talk page to begin with, so I have resurrected it and placed it here after it was deleted by Gwillhickers.] BlueMoonset (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

-- (Doug Coldwell has also been called in as he has been active in creating and contributing to many such articles.) The main article link to Early American publishers and printers was at the top of this article but was moved to the See also section by user SchreiberBike, with the claim that the article in question is not the main article for William Goddard. My reasoning is that if we were going to write a book about Early American publishers and printers, William Goddard would be one chapter under that main title, as William Goddard was just one early American publisher and printer among many. The main article about Early American publishers and printers also offers background information and puts Goddard and other such printers in context with one another for the time period they lived in. I suppose I can live with the link in the See also section, but there it will often be overlooked, as a large percentage of readers only read the lede and maybe one or two particular sections of interest. With the link in question at the top as a main article, the linked article, which links to dozens of other printers and related subjects, will be read by far more readers than if it was simply listed at the bottom of the Goddard article. Imo, a main article link is appropriate and would also serve a number of useful purposes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I understand where you're coming from. Early American publishers and printers is important in understanding who William Goddard is and vital in understanding his place in the American history of publishers and printers. I think though that having Early American publishers and printers as the main article at the top of William Goddard's page (before even his name and dates) says that the link is more important than the text below to understanding William Goddard. I'm sure you don't think that, but I think it implies that. Less important, it also violates the instructions for the Main template:
 * "This template is used after the heading of the summary, to link to the subtopic article that has been summarized." and
 * "This template should also not be used in lead sections."
 * I'd seen that you'd added that template to several articles, but didn't want to revert you wholesale. Thanks for bringing this up for discussion. I think that as a reader I'd find that Main article tag at the top confusing. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 21:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * — Many thanks for your prompt and well reasoned reply. Well, I guess one can't argue with policy. I was hoping there would be a better way to get the Early American publishers and printers article noticed other than to list it under 'See also'. Perhaps as a piped link in an appropriate phrase in the lede would help. I'll also start removing such links from the other articles. Thanks also for not going on a revert campaign. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment
This article is part of Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)