Talk:John Ratcliff (bookbinder)

Improvements

Hello Doug,

Firstly thanks for fixing the mistake I made in the John Ratcliff article. I did not realize that the article "The Bookbindings of John Ratcliff..." was already featured in the Bibliography section, I simply missed that it was there, and assumed that top source was supposed to point to it.

That said, I think there are some things that could be changed here, and since you seem to be keeping an eye on this article I thought I would run them by you. Firstly I should state up front that I actually work for the American Antiquarian Society, and on the side of my other duties; for a few hours a week, I've been trying to add links to any references to AAS proceedings articles that I find in Wikipedia, and work on adding a citation where it is necessary, with the goal helping to improve Wikipedia by giving its users access to as many proceedings articles as possible. Although many of the proceedings articles are technically not in the public domain, from about 1880 to the present(more on the way hopefully!) they are available freely for download from the AAS website. It is from here that I usually link the articles as it is a consistent spot to which to link to the PDFs. There are places where individuals have linked out to Google Books or Hathitrust, and unless the link is bad, I generally just leave those be except I will sometimes add a bit of citation information if it is lacking.

Here are a couple things I've noticed, and I'd be happy to do any work if you'd like if you think these changes make sense:

1. Reference #14 must be referring to the 1929 "The Bookbindings of John Ratcliff..." but it is tied to what is essentially a bibliographic place holder through Google books which doesn't actually contain any content. Would it make more sense to tie it to the link for "The Bookbindings of John Ratcliff..."?

2. If that article were tied to that link, the first reference would essentially be superfluous, and could probably just be deleted, since again it doesn't really link to any content that users can access.

3. On the topic of "The Bookbindings of John Ratcliff..."; the link that is present in the article is again basically a bibliographic place holder. Because it's published in 1929 it's outside the public domain and so I guess Google doesn't link to it. I could (or anyone could as they are all up there for anyone's use) easily link to the full article from the AAS website, and Wikipedia readers would then have full access to this article.

4. One last thing, which is that the link for "The Bookbindings of John Ratcliff..." doesn't really have any citation information. If it were to be linked to the PDF on the AAS site, the link would be for that particular article, and the specific information for that volume of the proceedings wouldn't be readily available, and anyone wishing to find that information would have to do some hunting to figure out just which volume it comes out of. Rather than citing the article as by "The Society" If we were to add a citation similar to the one that I added above for "Additional notes on Ratcliff and Ranger bindings" than there would be a link to the full article and a good citation that would make it easy for users to know exactly where the article came from.

5. Oh I just noticed something, would it make sense to add the suffix(Bookbinder) to the Ratcliff article title? He seems to be one of many John Ratcliffs including one with the same spelling who is apparently a cricket player.

Phew! that's a mouthful over a couple links. Let me know how you feel about these suggestions, and if I can be of any assistance.

Sincerely, ADGB1750 (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

My answer to all that you said = Yes! Please give me any assistance you can. Thanks for help.

If you see what can be fixed, go ahead and make that edit. Meanwhile, I'll study what you said and try to make those improvements. If I see something technical, I'll fix it. Otherwise you will know the references better. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me start first by making the name John Ratcliff (bookbinder).--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I just removed the bad links you are referring to. If you want to go ahead and make those improvement links = now it is available. If you need technical help, just say something.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I put back the references (#14) that I removed earlier, as after I got thinking about it I do believe it to be correct.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I put the PDF file "Holmes, Thomas James. Additional notes on Ratcliff and Ranger bindings. Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society 39(2): 291-306. 1929" in External links per WP:MoS.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Ratcliff (bookbinder). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140903134827/http://cdm15999.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/IR/id/2565/rec/10 to http://cdm15999.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/IR/id/2565/rec/10

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Ratcliff (bookbinder). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303211428/http://www.americanantiquarian.org/bindings2.htm to http://www.americanantiquarian.org/bindings2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Ratcliff (bookbinder)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 00:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hello Doug Coldwell, I'll be taking up the review for this nomination and will present it to you shortly. I hope you find my feedback helpful. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Assessment

1. Comprehension:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

2. Verifiability:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No copyright violation or plagiarism found.	Pass

3. Comprehensiveness:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

4. Neutrality:

Notes	Result
The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

5. Stability:

Notes	Result
The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

6. Illustration:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

 

---

• Inactive reviewer, second opinion requested on [Talk page]. Review is taken over.

 

Starts GA Review. The review will follow the same sections of the Article. Thank you --Whiteguru (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

 

---

 

Observations

Document statistics

• HTML document size: 92 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 9536 B
• References (including all HTML code): 21 kB
• Wiki text: 15 kB
• Prose size (text only): 5629 B (961 words) "readable prose size" as per WP:SIZERULE
• References (text only): 2808 B

Page Information

• Page views in the past 30 days = 128
• 90 day page views = 420, daily average = 5 views
• Date of page creation = 10:21, 16 December 2006
• Date of latest edit = 07:10, 24 June 2022
• Total number of edits = 77 by 33 editors
• Most of the edits on this page occurred in 2013 ...
• Bots on page noted; no Clue BotNT noted
• Internet Archive Bot has made 6 edits to this article.

Images

• File:Rosenbach Eliot Indian Bible 6B.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic
• File:Rosenbach Eliot Indian Bible 1.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic
• File:Rosenbach Eliot Indian Bible 2.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic
• File:Rosenbach Eliot Indian Bible 3.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic
• File:Rosenbach Eliot Indian Bible 4.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic
• File:Rosenbach Eliot Indian Bible 5.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic
• File:General Lawes and Libertyes, Massachusetts 1660.jpg = Fair use claimed: first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1927
• File:Bay Psalm Book 1651.jpg = Fair use claimed: first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1927
• File:New England Memoriall 1669.jpg = Fair use claimed: first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1927
• File:Sewall's Commonplace Book.jpg = Fair use claimed: first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1927
• File:Call From Heaven 1679 cover.jpg = Fair use claimed: first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1927
• Images are tagged and non-free content have no-free use rationales; Images have appropriate use with suitable captions

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

• Later Englishman Ratcliff ... my sense is Englishman is superfluous.

•  Done

• imported Morocco leather instead of domestic leather → imported Morocco leather instead of using domestic leather (consider)

•  Done

• In the section Boston, Massachusetts do we need a link to the Boston page?

•  Done

• Unsure what the bullet point linking Holmes, "Collection of tracts" is present for.

•  Done - The reference goes to page 15 which describes "A Collection of Tracts" (bottom}

• underneath the second gallery is a link to Increase Mather 1670–80 → this is for ?

•  Done - The reference goes to page 15 which describes "A Collection of Tracts" (bottom}

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

• Reference 8 has been taken down by the Internet Archive

•  Done

• Reference 23 goes to a blank page (view page source, there is nothing there)

•  Done

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

• Considering the references and historical documents consulted, coverage is replete and focussed.

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

• NPOV is preserved in this article.

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have no-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

• Yes, see above

1. Overall:

• Is there any information on the life and works of Ratcliff after he returned to England?

•  Done - there are no further records on him.{sfn|Holmes|1929|p=14}.

• Await responses to queries. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for review. I'll get started on the issues straight-a-way. BTW, your review does NOT show up on the article talk page. Do you know how to fix. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• The review was there originally; I removed it when I took over the review, for the sake of clarity. I am not the original reviewer. I do know how to put it there, although.
• @Whiteguru: All issues have been addressed. Did I get them all? Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk)

• @Doug Coldwell: Thanks for your work here. Another GA to your list. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

 

 Passed

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

This article is part of Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)