Wikipedia:Peer review/Joseph Johnson (publisher)/archive1

Joseph Johnson (publisher)
WillowW and I have worked up this article on an important and interesting eighteenth-century publisher. I intend on taking it to FAC, so comments along the lines of its readiness for that venue would be much appreciated. (This article is currently nominated at GAC as well, but they are very backlogged over there.) Awadewit | talk  07:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Review from Scartol
I'll skip the usual platitude about how this is another fine article from two of Wikipedia's finest editors. Anyway, it is. I doubt I can offer much substantial constructive assistance, but I am good at picking nits. Therefore, let us begin!

Lead


 * The last three sentences of ¶ one and the first sentence of ¶ two all start with "Johnson". I don't know how or if it's possible, but some variety would be good.
 * I changed some to "he" and moved a sentence. Awadewit | talk  11:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Early life


 * These two characteristics of his home—Dissent and commercialism—remained an important part of Johnson's character… "characteristics … remained … [a] … part": I dunno, it feels wrong to go from plural to singular. (But then "these characteristics remained important parts…" also looks weird.) You make the call.
 * Changed to "central elements" (went with plural). Awadewit | talk  11:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * it was unusual for the younger son of a family living in relative obscurity to move to London and become a bookseller. I removed the final "to" here, but then it occurred to me that maybe it's intentional; if so, please re-add it.
 * It was supposed to be for parallel construction: "to move to London and to become a bookseller". I have restored it, if that's ok. Awadewit | talk  11:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Scholars have speculated that Johnson was bound out to Keith because he was associated with local Liverpool Baptists. Presumably the "he" refers to Keith, but maybe it needs to be clearer?
 * Grammatically "he" does refer to Keith, but perhaps this isn't enough? Have changed "he" to "the bookseller". Awadewit | talk  11:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Ladies New and Polite Pocket Memorandum Book – is there no apostrophe after Ladies?
 * Correct. I think apostrophe usage in the eighteenth century was a bit spotty. :) Awadewit | talk  11:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The appearance of religious books is rather sudden; maybe say: "…religious texts began to dominate his book list…"?
 * They didn't begin to - they did from the start. I have tried to make this clearer by making Johnson's connection to Dissent more clearly religious in the previous sentence. Awadewit | talk  11:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * …he also published works relating to Liverpool, his hometown, and medical texts. For purposes of series continuity, maybe make the last item "medicine"? (Unless he was publishing works about other works about medicine?)
 * Changed. Awadewit | talk  11:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The bit about the congers feels out of place; I expected the blockquote to relate to it somehow. Maybe put the congers sentence after the quote?
 * Excellent solution. Awadewit | talk  11:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Mmmm, Henry Fuseli.
 * Have you read A Series of Unfortunate Events? Awadewit | talk  11:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but the description on that page sounds like the author ripped me off! – Scartol  •  Tok  14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Fuseli was Johnson's closest friend until his death. Whose death?
 * Johnson's - again grammar might not be enough, but to repeat Johnson seems inelegant. Suggestions? Awadewit | talk  11:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I deliberately left it because I couldn't think of one. Let's see. How about "Fuseli was his closest friend until Johnson's death."? – Scartol  •  Tok  14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that really solves the problem, does it? Besides, now the grammar is wrong. :) Awadewit | talk  17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose it is. Sorry, I'm out of ideas. – Scartol  •  Tok  18:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How about "Johnson and Fuseli remained best friends until Johnson's death in 1809."? Willow 18:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How about: Johnson and Fuseli were BFF. :) - Willow's is definitely the best version so far. Awadewit | talk  18:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Priestley, in turn, trusted Johnson enough to handle the logistics of his induction into the Royal Society. Whose induction?
 * Priestley's - this is supposed to be inductive. :) Why would it be worth stating that Priestley trusted Johnson to handle Johnson's own induction? Suggestions? Awadewit | talk  11:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. Sometimes I slip away from logic and go into pure sentence-structure mode. I trust you to decide if it needs revision. Re-reading this sentence, I don't think it does. – Scartol  •  Tok  14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Newly independent, with an established reputation, Johnson did not struggle as he had before. This is the first we hear (unless I'm mistaken) of previous struggles. Include a mention earlier?
 * It's just a general struggle. Sentence changed to: Newly independent, with a reputation, Johnson did not need to struggle to establish himself as he had early in his career. Awadewit | talk  11:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Am I supposed to know what the Chapter Coffee House is/was? The quote makes me feel like I ought (and makes me want a cup of joe).
 * No, you aren't supposed to know. I don't know and the sources didn't say anything beyond this. I was hoping someday someone might add something there. :) Awadewit | talk  11:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought that might be it. – Scartol  •  Tok  14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * While Johnson looked to his business interests, he did not necessarily publish only works that would enrich him. I didn't want to remove "necessarily" in a unilateral fashion, but if I owned the article, I'd take it out.
 * Removed unnecessary "necessarily". Awadewit | talk  11:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * …he helped Priestley publish the Theological Repository, which was a financial failure, but which called on its contributors to submit… How about: "…Repository, a financial failure which called on…"? (Again, I didn't feel safe making this change myself.)
 * Changed. Awadewit | talk  11:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed it because "occasional travel narratives" sounds to me like the narratives are occasional (each one produced periodically).
 * Sounds better. Awadewit | talk

More to come after I shovel the walk! – Scartol  •  Tok  20:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just rain here. :) Awadewit | talk  11:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous – you can't shovel rain! Silly person. – Scartol  •  Tok  14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

1770s: Establishment


 * I don't know why, but it seems like the subtitle "…and advocacy of Unitarianism" would be better.
 * Changed. Awadewit | talk  11:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * He continued his support in 1787, 1789, and 1790… The end of this sentence is a bit confusing (two possible subjects for the verb "publishing").
 * Now reads: He continued his support in 1787, 1789, and 1790, when Dissenters introduced repeal bills in Parliament, and published much of the pro-repeal literature written by Priestley and others. Awadewit | talk  11:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (insert facile joke here about Disney)
 * Indeed - think they're related? :) Awadewit | talk  11:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This probably isn't the place for it, but I feel compelled to say that the internationalist in me always bristles when "American" is used to refer to people in the US. I know American Revolution is the most widely-used term, so it's not a big deal. I just have to always be difficult. (By splitting my infinitives, for example.)
 * The reason I use it here is because it was often used at the time. Does that tame your bristles? Awadewit | talk  11:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess. Actually, I think it's just a personal problem. I know people don't mean anything by it. I should get over it. – Scartol  •  Tok  14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I split infinitives, too, by the way. Do you know why English has that rule? In the eighteenth-century, when grammarians were codifying English grammar (part of nation-building and imperialism projects), they looked to Latin and since Latin doesn't split its infinitives, they decided English shouldn't either. However, the Latin rules make sense for that language while they don't for ours. The grammarians just wanted English to be more Latinate. So, I don't feel bad about splitting. Awadewit | talk  11:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's really interesting to watch everyday English gradually morphing back into German, putting its verbs at the ends of clauses, with the adverbs just before. I hope I live long enough to see it fully completed. ;) Willow 12:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. I learned something about the language today. Now I have to offer a language fact. Umm, let's see. Did you know Bling bling was entered into the OED in 2003? – Scartol  •  Tok  14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that. Did you see the story about the language is Mexico that is dying because the last two living speakers are refusing to speak to each other? They got into a spat. Awadewit | talk  17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * …and the inalienable right to liberty of conscience", rights he viewed Dissenters as fighting for as well. Is it not possible to just say: "rights Dissenters were fighting for as well."?
 * Well, I thought it was a good idea to list examples. Awadewit | talk  11:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, absolutely. I was referring only to the wording of the tail end of that sentence. – Scartol  •  Tok  14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Changed. Awadewit | talk  17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Important early publications" seems like an odd subhead title, given all the other important publications which have already been mentioned.
 * I know - it is an artifact of an older version before we had all of these new, exciting sections. Do you have any ideas? That section is kind of disparate. Awadewit |  talk  11:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Publishing variety"? How about "Teeth, antimony, and women"? – Scartol  •  Tok  14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Went with the blander "Informative texts". Awadewit | talk  17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume no author was listed for Laws Respecting Chicks? (Do I have enough street cred as a feminist to make that joke? Am I going to be assaulted on my way home?)
 * I think you have to get Emma Goldman to FA first. :) - Correct, no author. Awadewit | talk  11:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm so ready to work on EG. I forced myself to grade some papers this morning, but now I can work with a clear conscience. Boring side note – When I got back from the libraries the other day I realized that in my zeal I had checked out the same book from two different libraries! I've got a problem. – Scartol  •  Tok  14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you need a list and a checkmark system. :) Awadewit | talk  17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

1780s: Success


 * I don't know if you need the sentence: Johnson had begun his career as a relatively cautious publisher of religious and scientific tracts. The earlier parts of the article seem to make this clear.
 * Just in case someone skips to this part of the article. Also, it's a nice little summary to remind readers of the chronology, I think. Awadewit | talk  11:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. – Scartol  •  Tok  14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is only one of Cowper's books redlinked?
 * This is Cowper's major poem. It deserves a page - there is tons of stuff written on it. I'm not totally sure you could write a page on the others. I would have to look into it and see how much scholarship there is. Awadewit | talk
 * Makes sense. – Scartol  •  Tok  14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Quotes like "the botanist who brought the Linnaean system to England" which aren't attributed in the article make me uneasy; I much prefer the Chard emphasizes that it "was held together…" variety. Maybe this is WP:ILIKEIT.
 * This kind of quote does not need to be attributed in my opinion because it is not just one person's theory on Linnaeus. The only reason I have it in quotation marks is because I am using the precise words of the author. However, the idea is widely held. I only attribute quotations or ideas that belong (intellectually) to an author. Otherwise, the prose just becomes weighted down. Awadewit | talk  11:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I trust you on it. I suppose I've just trained myself to attribute every quote within the text itself. Personal preference, I guess.


 * I don't know how relevant the deviance from 90° of the house's walls is. Or how grammatically correct that sentence I just wrote is.
 * I thought the walls were funny in an otherwise dry article. Oh well. The walls have been taken down. Awadewit | talk  11:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree it's very interesting – I just worry that someone else will demand their removal. I don't mean to make you pull a Pink Floyd. – Scartol  •  Tok  14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

1790s: Walnuts Years of radicalism


 * and he raised money for Thomas Paine's bail. How about: "When Thomas Paine was arrested in 179x for [reason], Johnson raised money for bail."?
 * This is all explained in greater detail later. I hate to repeat too much. Awadewit | talk  11:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I realized that as I read. Your call. – Scartol  •  Tok  14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is just too confusing without the detail. Removed. Awadewit | talk  17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Johnson's periodical, the Analytical Review, published a summary and review within a couple of weeks and a mere month after Burke published, Wollstonecraft responded with her Vindication of the Rights of Men. This sentence doesn't make sense to me. Am I missing something, or does it need to be split in two?
 * Now reads: Johnson's periodical, the Analytical Review, published a summary and review of Burke's work within a couple of weeks of its publication. Two weeks after that, Wollstonecraft responded to Burke with her Vindication of the Rights of Men''. Awadewit | talk  11:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent. But how would you feel about "Two weeks later" rather than "Two weeks after that"? – Scartol  •  Tok  14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed. Awadewit | talk  17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The bit about printers censoring books is fascinating, but I feel it's something of a tangent here.
 * Too bad, but I agree. Removed. Awadewit | talk  11:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 4550 is a rather precise number to be used with a word like "around". Maybe 4500?
 * Following source there. Awadewit | talk  11:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. – Scartol  •  Tok  14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * After being forced to testify at the trial of Paine and Thomas Hardy,… Was it one trial for both men?
 * What a mess - you tell me. See 1794 Treason Trials. My answer would be "yes" and "no". :) Awadewit | talk  11:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Bleah. Never mind. – Scartol  •  Tok  14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In 1794 Johnson even considered emigrating to America with Priestley. This sounds as though it's related to the previous sentence (about Barlow's radicalization), but that seems wrong. Reword?
 * Now reads: In 1794 Johnson even considered emigrating to America with Priestley to escape the increasing pressure he felt from conservatives and the government. Awadewit | talk  11:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

1800s: Declining years and death


 * Maybe a word about how he came back after the second fire? (It just feels jarring to see discussion of what he published all of a sudden.)
 * I don't think we know. I didn't see anything on it, anyway. Awadewit | talk  12:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Aiight, den. – Scartol  •  Tok  14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The pound symbol is, I believe, used several times before "Johnson's remaining £60,000 fortune". Is it an oversight that it's linked here for the first time? (Is this a different symbol from the one in the Godwin sentence? Am I showing a colossal ignorance of lbs?)
 * Linked earliest version and fixed anomalous pound signs (what is that other sign?). Awadewit | talk  12:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Search me. – Scartol  •  Tok  14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know what the "torture and malady" in the epitaph refer to – is it the government clamp-down?
 * It was some sort of respiratory disease. Willow has the details on this, I think. Awadewit | talk  12:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try to track the reference for that down again. Willow 12:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Aw shucks. I was hoping it was the bastinado. (One of my first worthwhile edits to Wikipedia!) – Scartol  •  Tok  14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Legacy


 * Awadewit dislikes infoboxes; my peeve is the blue pull-quote box. Can't that be worked into the article or something?
 * Well, I generally agree with you on this, but since this is a whole poem, I don't feel so badly about it. Poems don't work into articles very well. Awadewit | talk  12:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Does it have to be such a dark blue? As a reader, too, I'd prefer to have some sort of context if it's available – maybe a word on who Edgeworth was (she's only listed among other people) and why she felt compelled to write it? – Scartol  •  Tok  14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought all quote boxes had to be in that blue. I'll try to find a lighter blue. I don't know much about the composition of the poem. I'll see if I can track something down. Awadewit | talk  17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * He didn't own Richardson's works? Good. Richardson was a third-rate idiot hack who got lucky and accidentally helped to invent the novel. (After I was forced to read Pamela – scribbling angry notes in it with a Sharpie™ all the while – I stabbed it, tore pages out, set it on fire, and threw it out of my second-floor dorm room window. True story.)
 * Oh, really? I like writing on that book. You have to find its eighteenth-century charm, I guess. Don't read Julie, or the New Heloise! Awadewit | talk  12:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, now I have to read that book. By combining a page-turner with a bodice-ripper, Richardson produced a page-ripper. ;)  It's very good, though, that an English teacher and writer should feel so passionately about literature and the craft. :) Willow 12:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's one way of putting it. =) I believe the police called it "willful defacement of historically canonized literature". (Just kidding. The police never got involved.) Awad: Find the eighteenth-century charm? I'll be honest and admit that I have no interest in looking. Every person gets to be closed-minded about something; Pamela is my something. – Scartol  •  Tok  14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should save your wrath for Richardson's Clarissa (the rape actually happens in that one). Awadewit | talk  16:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Wollstonecraft caption feels a little flat compared to the others.
 * Expanded. Awadewit | talk  12:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Does the part about how much his books cost to produce (and their quality) belong in "Legacy"?
 * I wasn't sure where else to put it, since it was so general. Apparently, this was an important contribution he made. Awadewit | talk  12:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty important; perhaps he would've been a Wikipedian in our time? Willow 12:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think so. I mean the Analytical Review wanted to inform people, did it not? (Did you see the cool new info I added on it being a part of the "encyclopedizing" movement of the eighteenth century?) Awadewit | talk  12:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would fit in the "1760s: Beginnings in publishing" section. (I searched for "encyclo" and found nothing.) – Scartol  •  Tok  14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's there: In repackaging other publications for its readers, the Analytical Review was part of the encyclopedic movement of the eighteenth century. The journal shared in the desire to organize and classify knowledge for its readers while at the same time recognizing the ultimate futility of the project. In so doing, the journal's editors believed that they were preserving the knowledge of the past and the present for the future. Awadewit | talk  17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeesh! I thought I was going insane! You added it to the Analytical Review article! Now it makes sense. – Scartol  •  Tok  18:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff! I've learned a lot, and I thank you for inviting me into this project. Now go away! I'm finally ready to work on Red Emma! =) Good luck with this, y'all. – Scartol  •  Tok  23:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could assess this article against the GA criteria now that you've read it? I have a feeling it will sit there for a very long time. Awadewit | talk  12:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a Johanna-come-lately, but I don't think that I could've contributed much more to two such sharp-eyed Wikipedians. Thank you,  Scartol, for your meticulous review!  :) Willow 12:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Does GA have a quick-pass criteria? Seems like this would sail through even FA at this point. Why go through GA? – Scartol  •  Tok  14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * See, about a year ago, when I first joined up with wikipedia, people actually got reviews over at GA. :) Now they have an inhuman backlog, though. Also, going to GAC forces me to slow down on the way to FAC and meticulously rework the prose. Awadewit | talk  16:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll do a GA review. Won't take long. =) – Scartol  •  Tok  18:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Review by Markus Poessel

 * "often called the "father of the book trade" in England" – called that in England, or father of the English book trade?
 * Now reads: "father of the [English] book trade" but I don't know if I like that formulation - it looks like a huge editorial comment. I think another wording is needed. Awadewit | talk  22:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, why make it a direct quotation at all? --Markus Poessel (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Now moved to last paragraph of lead with original quotation. Awadewit | talk  18:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "issued primarily religious works" - did he issue works that were mostly religious in nature, or did he mostly issue works that were religious? (I'm not saying this needs to be changed, just probing for possible ambiguities.)
 * He issued more religious works than any other kind of work. I think this is clear from context, but let me know if we should reword. Awadewit | talk  22:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How about "primarily issued religious works" then? Should remove the possible confusion. --Markus Poessel (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed. Awadewit | talk  21:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "particularly at his famous weekly dinners (the regulars subsequently became known as the "Johnson Circle")." – is there a nicer way to append the sentence in parentheses? "(the regular attendants of which later became known as" – also, I would like "later" better than "subsequently", since there is no clearly defined point in time for the "subsequent" to attach to.
 * Now reads: ''He fostered the open discussion of new ideas, particularly at his famous weekly dinners, the regular attendees of which later became known as the "Johnson Circle".


 * "supporters of the French revolution and" – probably a comma after "revolution"?
 * Added. Awadewit | talk  22:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Religious Dissent marked Johnson" – is this precisely what you want to say? The subsequent statements sounds like "J grew up in a climate of Religious Dissent" or similar.
 * I mean both: he grew up in a climate and that climate imprinted itself upon his character. Awadewit | talk  21:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess that with transitive "mark" I'm so used to "marked out as" as to find the use here a bit off, but that's probably just me. -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is another literary usage, but is far more common. Women are "marked", for example. Yet another meaning! Awadewit | talk  05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Practice of Innoculation [sic]" – should the "[sic]" be in italics?
 * It already is. Awadewit | talk  22:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm asking: it is, but should it be? --Markus Poessel (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes - it is an abbreviation from the Latin. Awadewit | talk  21:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I know the meaning, and I know it's usually italicized when added to ordinary, non-italic text, so I was wondering whether it needed to be non-italic when added to text that is, itself, in italics. Admittedly a minor point. --Markus Poessel (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The italics for sic are independent of the surrounding text. Awadewit | talk  18:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Live and learn... -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "opened his own business; however" – why "however"? In what sense does the account of him moving shop limit the validity of the statement that he opened his own business?
 * I found it hard to formulate this sentence - moving his business made it hard for him to establish himself. One isn't a stable businessman if one is moving about so much. :) Awadewit | talk  22:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It depends. If you're moving to better and better locations, it means your business is thriving. --Markus Poessel (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He wasn't moving to a better location as far as I know - when he was, we try to say so: "By August 1770, just seven months after fire had destroyed his shop and goods, Johnson had reestablished himself at 72 St. Paul's Churchyard—the largest store on a street of booksellers—where he remained for the rest of his life." Awadewit | talk  21:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In any case, some additional insertion (for instance "however, he found it hard to establish himself, moving ..." would make it clearer, I think. --Markus Poessel (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Now reads: Upon completing his apprenticeship in 1761, Johnson opened his own business; however, he struggled to establish himself, moving his shop times within one year. Awadewit | talk  18:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "However, as a publisher Johnson did not just sell books." – not quite what it is meant to be. Probably should be something like "However, it should be noted that, in Johnson's time, the role of a publisher included much more than just selling books" or similar (I don't like the "role" in my sentence, but you can see what I mean).
 * Now reads: As a publisher Johnson did more than sell books. (It is wordy to add phrases such as "it should be noted that"). Awadewit | talk  02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Coming back to this, I guess that no publisher just sells books – after all, per definition they arrange for the editing, the printing, and so on, as well. Hm. How about something along the lines However, Johnson did more than just tend to the logistics of publication. He also...? --Markus Poessel (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Now reads: As a publisher Johnson attended to more than the selling and distributing of books. Awadewit | talk  21:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * congers: briefly explain in the text. Readers should be able to understand this article without clicking on wikilinks.
 * "which spread the risk of publishing a costly or inflammatory book among several firms" - This is not enough? (By the way, I think wikilinks are one of the best things about wikipedia - I don't think that everything can possibly be explained inside a single article. For example, I can't explain the French revolution in this article. The balance is tricky, I admit, but the fact that readers can so easily be taken to further explanations is one of the best parts of the online experience, in my opinion.) Awadewit | talk  02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's enough, since the reader doesn't automatically know that the "which spread" is the main reason for forming a conger, not just some additional side effect you mention here. "congers, that is, special syndicates set up to spread the risk of publishing..." might be better.  I think a WP article should be written in a way that it is readable without the average curious reader feeling compelled to follow any wikilink.  That reader has heard about the French Revolution, but not necessarily about congers. --Markus Poessel (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Now reads: other publishers began including him in congers, a syndicate which spread the risk of publishing a costly or inflammatory book among several firms. Awadewit | talk  21:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be picky once more, but shouldn't the syndicates be plural, if the congers are? --Markus Poessel (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Syndicates are now plural. Awadewit | talk  18:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Johnson formed two friendships that shaped the rest of his life." – as they probably didn't immediately shape the rest of his life: "two friendships that were to shape the rest of his life"?
 * Changed verb tense. Awadewit | talk  02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Fuseli was Johnson's closest friend until his death." – the only concrete date given is the beginning of the friendship, so perhaps "was to remain J.'s closest friend" would be better?
 * Changed. Awadewit | talk  02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "This friendship led Johnson to discard the Baptist faith of his youth and adopt Unitarianism, as well as other forms of religious and political dissent." – help me out on this: wasn't Baptist faith a form of dissent, too? In which case this sentence appears to build too much of a contrast (Baptism here, dissent there).
 * Not worth going into. Now reads: This friendship led Johnson to discard the Baptist faith of his youth and adopt Unitarianism as well as pursue forms of political dissent. Awadewit | talk  02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Priestley, in turn, trusted Johnson enough to handle the logistics of his induction into the Royal Society." – what logistics were those? It would be great if this could be re-written in a way that the average reader immediately understand why this was a sign of trust.
 * I don't know, unfortunately. Priestley just let Johnson handle a lot of his correspondence and a couple of the biographers made a bit of a deal out of him letting Johnson handle this particular element of it - probably because becoming a member of the Royal Society was such an honor and it meant a lot to Priestley. Nothing very interesting, there, I'm afraid. Awadewit | talk  02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When in doubt, leave it out? --Markus Poessel (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But this is only tidbit showing the other side of the friendship. I think it is important to leave it in. Awadewit | talk  21:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But again, without the details, do we even know this was a sign of special trust? --Markus Poessel (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We trust the sources - the historians' interpretation of events. Awadewit | talk  18:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. We should trust the sources, but in cases like this, where the source apparently doesn't give us sufficient information for at least a plausibility check how the interpretation came about, we should be careful.  Which, here, could mean just attributing the interpretation explicitly – including it as a quote.  -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just don't think this is important enough to quote. The notes are available for the reader, if they want to check them. Awadewit | talk  05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "The late 1760s were a time of growing radicalism in Britain, and although Johnson did not actively participate in any of the events" – how come we're talking about events now? What events?
 * The late 1760s were a time of growing radicalism in Britain, and although Johnson did not actively participate in any of the events, he facilitated the speech of those who did, by publishing works on the disputed election of John Wilkes and the agitation in the American colonies. - I think the whole sentence makes it clearer - the John Wilkes election fiasco and the beginning of the American revolution. It is important to make sure that readers know what is going on at each point in history, I think, and what the person's relation to it is. In this case, it is even more important, since Johnson becomes more active politically later. Awadewit | talk  02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How about "in any of the events taking place"? I just don't think (small point, admittedly) that the reader can be expected to know that the "growing radicalism" was tied to specific events. It could have been a trend in publishing, in the way laws were introduced in parliament, etc. -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're asking for a redundancy to be inserted - events always "take place". We don't need to tell readers that. I think that we can safely say that readers will assume that the events are the ones listed and will tie "events" to "radicalism". Awadewit | talk  05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite redundancy, but possibly not the best way of putting this. The proper way of doing this would be to say that it was a time of radicalism, indicate that this radicalism can be tied to specific events, and then take J didn't take part in those events. "The late 1760s were a time of growing radicalism in Britain, crystallizing in events such as the John Wilkes election fiasco and . Although Johnson did not actively participate..." --Markus Poessel (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am really quite comfortable with this sentence as it stands. I think it is quite clear; it defines the growing radicalism through the events that Johnson didn't participate in but published works about, a fair and accurate statement: The late 1760s were a time of growing radicalism in Britain, and although Johnson did not actively participate in any of the events, he facilitated the speech of those who did, by publishing works on the disputed election of John Wilkes and the agitation in the American colonies. Awadewit | talk  06:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "By August 1770, just seven months after fire had destroyed his shop and goods, Johnson had reestablished himself at 72 St. Paul's Churchyard—the largest store on a street of booksellers—where he remained for the rest of his life." – again, somehow "where he would remain" sounds better to my ear, may be because it fits better with the preceding tenses.
 * I agree, but many FAC reviewers seem to have a problem with the "would" formulation. I've become skittish, frankly. Awadewit | talk  03:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK - "where he was to remain", then? --Markus Poessel (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed. Awadewit | talk  21:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Starting in the 1770s, Johnson published fewer generalized religious tracts" – "generalized"? From what?  "Fewer tracts on the subject of religion in general"?
 * Changed to: Johnson published more specifically Unitarian works, as well as texts advocating religious toleration; he also became personally involved in the Unitarian cause. Awadewit | talk  03:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Johnson actively participated in efforts to repeal the Test and Corporation Acts" – I keep trying to think of a way you can "participate in efforts" other than "actively". But may be it's just me.
 * I suppose I was just trying to emphasize that he did more than publish works, but I see your point. Removed "actively". Awadewit | talk  03:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Although Johnson became known for publishing Unitarian works, particularly those of Priestley, he also published the works of other Dissenters, Anglicans, and Jews." – I know what you mean, but it sounds a bit off. The "Although" refers only to the fact that most people know him as a publisher of X (while he was also a publisher of Y), but as it is written, it sounds as if being known for publishing X would somehow restrict the publishing of Y.  Either "it is a fact that he also" or something about his other activities being less well-known?
 * Now in the present tense: Although Johnson is known for publishing Unitarian works, particularly those of Priestley, he also published the works of other Dissenters, Anglicans, and Jews. Awadewit | talk  03:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "a political risk as the American colonies were in rebellion" – an additional "by that time" would be good, seeing that we're tracing developments starting at a time before the revolution.
 * Added for clarification. Awadewit | talk  03:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "because Dr. James's Fever Powder was quite popular and his fellow bookseller John Newbery made his fortune from it." – "had made his fortune", probably. And how?  Did the bookseller sell medicine, as well? Had he sold books about it?  A brief explanation would be welcome.
 * Changed to "had made his fortune from selling it". I don't want to go into a big tangent here on Newbery's fortune. I plan on writing the Newbery article someday - all will be explained in more detail there. (Hopefully the reader remembers the quote about publishers selling medicines in particular from earlier in the article!) Awadewit | talk  20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Johnson also contributed significantly to the development of children's literature in the eighteenth century, a genre that was just then emerging." – reads a bit strange. The genre is "children's literature in the eighteenth century"?  Or "children's literature"?  May be this should be two sentences.  Or a different construction ("the newly emerging genre of...").
 * Changed to "newly emerging genre of" - less wordy. Awadewit | talk  20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "become the center of a radical and stimulating intellectual milieu" – can something become the "center" of a "milieu"? Or is that a mildly mixed metaphor (literally, I suppose a "milieu" is itself the "center of the place")?
 * Oh, it can't? Hm. The definition is just "the physical or social setting in which something occurs or develops", so I think there can be a center. I've always had the feeling that "milieu" is pretty diffuse. Awadewit | talk  20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know – but in cases like this, where the exact attributes of some vague term like milieu are not universally known (as I conclude from our small sample-of-two), one should probably refrain from using the term
 * Well, the exact attributes of all abstract words in historical and literary articles are not universally known. Definitions are notoriously tricky things in language. This one doesn't strike me as very odd. I asked a few other people and they didn't think this was a strange formulation, but they were literary types like myself. Let's see if it gives anyone else pause. Awadewit | talk  18:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "he usually had only one assistant and never hired an apprentice" – were apprentices "hired" at that time? Weren't they indentured or something? "never took on an apprentice" probably covers everything.
 * Changed to "took on". Awadewit | talk  20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Johnson published Cowper's Poems (1782) and The Task (1784) at his own risk" – isn't that the norm rather than the exception, publishers publishing at their own risk? I assume that this is not what you intend to stress here; it's more about the risk, in this case, being larger than usual, right?
 * Many times in the eighteenth century, authors published at their own risk (Jane Austen did this, for example). In this case, Johnson took the risk (which was also riskier for him) - both meanings are intended. Awadewit | talk  20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. That is an important information that should definitely be in there for the non-18th-century-savvy reader.  How about "at his own risk; a remarkable step in an age where most authors published at their own risk" or similar (it can certainly be put more elegantly). -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Now reads: Johnson published Cowper's Poems (1782) and The Task (1784) at his own risk (a generous action at a time when most authors published at their own risk), and was rewarded with handsome sales of both volumes. Awadewit | talk


 * "where they would be sure to see his wares and this helped establish him" – comma after wares?
 * Optional - I think the second half is so short as to not need it, but since you do, I have added it. Awadewit | talk  20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "James Edward Smith, "the botanist who brought the Linnaean system to England".[57]" – any reason why this should be a direct quotation? To me, that's suspiciously close to overdoing it.
 * I just couldn't think of another wording at the time; I was also worried if I just replaced the verb, it would still be plagiarizing in spirit. Awadewit | talk  20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Is credited with bringing the Linnaean system? Introduced the Linnaean system?  Remembered for bringing the Linnaean system?  Whose claim to fame is to have brought the Linnaean system?  Was instrumental in bringing the Linnaean system?  Was responsible for bringing/introducing? --Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But that's just it - simply replacing the verb can still be considered plagiarism. I'm just changing one or two words. Until the entire phrase can be changed, the quotation remains. Awadewit | talk  05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd guess that, for small sentences like this, you cannot define plagiarism that strictly.  "credited with introducing the Linnaean system of taxonomy to English scholars"? I just think that making it a quotation introduces an emphasis that is confusing. --Markus Poessel (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I'm going to have to be a stickler about this. Plagiarism in the humanities is taken quite seriously and I cannot afford to write anything that has even the whiff of plagiarism about it nor am I interested in doing so. Awadewit | talk  06:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "book on lithotomy was illustrated by William Blake as well" – comma before "as well". Assuming that whoever wrote this has run out of commas, here's a free sample: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.
 * Oops - added. Awadewit | talk  20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "notions of the element and the compound" – I'm a bit bothered by the definite article (but again, may be that's just me). "of an element and of a compound"?
 * I was going for the abstract - "the notion" - the idea - not any old element or compound. Does that make sense? Awadewit | talk  20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You explicitly say "notions" – is that not sufficient indication? --Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But then using "a" detracts from that idea, in my opinion. Awadewit | talk  05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you leave out the articles altogether? The notions of element and compound?  I'm not sure about how to handle this, but "the" sounds off somehow. --Markus Poessel (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed. Awadewit | talk  06:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "By bringing inventive, thoughtful people together, he "stood at the very heart of British intellectual life" for over twenty years." – this sounds, once more, odd. How can you stand by bringing people together? I think this links one too directly to the other.  Especially since the first is true of many people, the last of very few.
 * I don't really sense the oddness - he's not "standing by" - he's "standing" metaphorically (also meaning "representing"). I also don't think very many people bring together "circles" like Johnson did. Awadewit |  talk  20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a bit uneasiness about bringing metaphors too close together. The very heart is metaphoric, and he's standing metaphorically.  How about "secured for himself a position at the very heart of"?  I won't push this, it was just something that struck me as slightly oddish. -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How did he do this "securing"? That has whole different connotations for me and in an eighteenth-century context, it sounds like he influenced people to get his position, which he didn't exactly. One usually "secures" positions at court or employment, if you see what I mean. Awadewit | talk  05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "and is believed to have written some 200 articles for his periodical, the Analytical Review" – why the uncertainty? Few copies survive?  Articles written under an assumed name, or anonymously?
 * Written under initials - we don't know for sure. This is explained in the Analytical Review article, where the details of contributions to that journal are explained in much greater detail. Awadewit | talk  20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can add some explanatory sentence to this effect, it would make for smoother reading. -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the details are best left to the Analytical Review article, because the reasons behind the anonymity take a bit to explain and they are not crucial for this article. Awadewit | talk  05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Johnson offered Wollstonecraft work as a translator, prompting her to learn French and German." – what's the order here? Did he offer her work despite her not knowing any foreign languages? That sounds a bit odd.  Or did he offer her work for some languages she already knew, encouraging her later to widen her linguistic range?
 * She did not know the languages - she learned them as she was translating, yes. The oddness is correct. :) Awadewit | talk  20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Johnson encouraged Wollstonecraft to work as a translator, prompting her"? Not exactly the same (doesn't say that he actually offered her concrete projects – I didn't want to repeat "work"), but, in my view, less confusing. -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He did offer her translation projects, though, so that has to made clear. How about: Johnson provided Wollstonecraft with translation opportunities, prompting her to learn French and German. Awadewit | talk  05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Society for Constitutional Information" – please add a half-sentence explanations. Readers shouldn't have to click.
 * Added "which was attempting to reform Parliament". I usually only add these when I think they will be helpful. I'm not sure this one explains anything. Sometimes people just have to read more if they really want to know, I'm afraid. Awadewit | talk  20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "his willingness to publish works that reflected the "challenging new historicist versions of the scriptures"" – is "reflected" the right word here? Can works reflect a version?
 * It's a common word in literary criticism, but I'll change it as I don't think it is common for other people. New word: "expressed". Awadewit | talk  20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "promoted"? -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed. Awadewit | talk  05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Edmund Burke – again, think of your poorly schooled readership and please add some epithets: "the well-known statesman and philosopher E.B."?
 * Added "philosopher and statesman". Awadewit | talk  20:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "bestselling poetical works of Cowper and Darwin" – I think most readers will not remember the single earlier mention of Darwin, namely that this is Erasmus Darwin. Somehow, Darwin falls from the sky here, without introduction. I think this should change, including a more explicit statement that we're talking with nature-inspired poetry here.  Cowper and his work are properly introduced in earlier parts of the article; why not Darwin?
 * Are you saying there should be more on Darwin and Johnson overall? One reason for the most extensive Cowper information is that Johnson and Cowper had more of a personal relationship than Darwin and Johnson. (I've added "Erasmus Darwin" to avoid the confusion.) Awadewit | talk  20:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * May be a sentence or two; I think it's an interesting sidelight. -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Material added. Awadewit | talk  20:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "They were apparently close enough friends for Coleridge to leave his books at Johnson's shop when he toured Europe." – how does this indicate close friendship?
 * According to the sources it does. I suppose you have to think of how expensive books were at the time. They were not easy to replace. Johnson was like Coleridge's safety-deposit box. Awadewit | talk  20:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anything small you can add to make the reader think of how expensive books were at the time would be good, I think. -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this would be WP:SYN. Awadewit | talk  05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "and tried for seditious libel and many" – comma before "and many"?
 * Optional, but added for you. Awadewit | talk  20:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! My very own personal comma! -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "several others were tried for selling" – personally, I think that "were put on trial" sounds better in this context.
 * Changed. Awadewit | talk  20:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Johnson also asked that his portrait of Priestley be given "to an American College or Institution for promoting knowledge"." – so where did it end up?
 * That is all I know. Awadewit | talk  20:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What does the source say? Even adding "the whereabouts of which are, however, unknown" or similar would be better than just to leave it dangling. -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just removed the sentence - not crucial. Awadewit | talk  05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "one of the women writers Johnson promoted and assisted, who also thought of him as a brother and a father" – where does the "also" come from? What else are we told she thought?  Or who else thought of J. as a brother and a father?
 * Removed "also". Awadewit | talk  20:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "this was expected at the time" – "this did not surprise his contemporaries" – or did they come to expect, which always carries a bit of its other meaning of claiming something as ones right, shoddy quality?
 * It was expected of ephemeral literature at the time, whether printed by Johnson or not. Changed to "this was expected by his contemporaries". Awadewit | talk  20:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

--Markus Poessel (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)