# Talk:John Wilson Bengough

"Bringing Down Giants: Thomas Nast, John Wilson Bengough and the Maturing of Political Cartooning"
"Grip and the Bengoughs as Publishers and Printers"
"JW Bengough and Grip the Canadian editorial cartoon comes of age"
"Grip Magazine and “the Other”: The Genteel Antisemitism of JW Bengough"

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Wilson Bengough/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: TerribleTy27 (talk · contribs) 03:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I'm TerribleTy, And I will be reviewing this article!  I'll Update this review everyday, pointing things you can do etc. Then it's either pass or fail! TerribleTy27 (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Okay, so far the citations check out, but it seems like you should get some citations in the introduction. Also, across some of the page, some detail is probably needed, I marked each area with a comment. Also, the grammar, prose, that kind of stuff, it needs to be improved, Also, it appears that this article 'glorifies' John Wilson Bengough, leaning to his side in most sections, picturing him as a super righteous hero, the article doesn't balance it with some of the negative effects that his articles caused, due to this, i'm putting the review on hold, until someone improves the article. TerribleTy27 (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

If by "introduction" you mean the lead, normally we leave that uncited except for particularly contoversial information; the lead normally acts as a summary of the body, where the citations are required (see WP:LEAD).
As to balance: could you give some examples? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
(sorry for the long wait, some junk came up)Ok, as to the lead, I usually prefer more cites, but that's fine. In what I've seen, the article seems to mostly lean towards the positive feedback that he recieved, but what do people negatively see of him? TerribleTy27 (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, there's certainly criticism in there: he's called a "a racist chauvinist bigot" and his poetry is "undistiguished".  I suppose I'm just not seeing how the article "glorifies" him, so I could use some help seeing it.  If it's there, perhaps I could reword it, because I don't think there's anything more in the sources I have in the way of significant negative criticism. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
To me, It seems to be making him out as a great man who never made a negative impact on the country. But since your so sure, and i'm getting unsure. I'm asking for a second opinion. Ty out! TerribleTy27 (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
TerribleTy27: I'm not saying I'm "so sure", I'm saying from my perspective as the one who wrote it, it's difficult to see what you're seeing without concrete examples.  This is why we look for outside help. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


### Prhartcom review
TerribleTy27, I am happy to offer a second opinion on this GAN review if you'd like. I have brought some comics articles to GA and FA. I'll just read the article tonight and then by tomorrow will return with suggestions to improve the article according to the GA criteria. If you have any specific questions for me, feel free to leave them below. Prhartcom (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


#### Lead
According to WP:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations, there are reasons to have inline citations in the lead, however those reasons do not apply to this article. It is correct in this article to have no citations in the lead. The reviewer should ensure that each fact mentioned in the lead is again mentioned in the body and cited there, but again, not cited in the lead.
Is "[He] toured chalk talks" a proper phrase? "[He] toured talks" wouldn't be. Perhaps add a word showing the the progressive aspect, something like "[He] toured giving chalk talks".
Modified. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


#### Early life (1851–73)
"politically active: advocated": Perhaps "politically active: he advocated".
Yeeks.  Fixed. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Linking "single tax" to the Georgism article: Acurate, however that article doesn't mention "single tax" in bold in the first sentence or paragraph of its lead, so I believe this qualifies as an WP:EASTEREGG and should be tweaked.
I've gone with [[Georgism|Georgist single tax]], unless someone's got a more elegant wording. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
"at some time": Do you mean "at some point in time" or "at some point"? The adjective-adverb "some time" implies "a long period".
I've gone with "may have sometime sailed ships out of Port Whitby". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
"had run a shop": Perhaps "ran a shop", as that sentence isn't expressing past perfect.
The 1840s is in the past from the perspective of 1851, which is the time where the sentence takes place. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
We have a fact discrepency between two articles: This one says Bengough worked with editor George Ham of the Whitby Gazette around 1865-1870, but the editor's own article says the name of the paper he edited at that time was the Whitby Chronicle. Please double-check your sources. If this article has it right, even though I know that this GA review shouldn't extend to other articles, I'll just say that it would be great if the name of the paper in the other article could be fixed (or the name fixed in this article, obviously, if the other one has it right).
It appears the Chronicle (from 1857) and Gazette (from 1862) merged in 1912 as the Gazette and Chronicle, which may be the source of confusion in the sources.  Working on figuring this out. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Ham was definitely [http://vitacollections.ca/whitbynews/2450742/page/2 the editor in 1870.  The source is missing the issues for mid-1870, though, so it doesn't have The Murderer's Scalp. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The Chronicle appears to have been published by a W. H. Higgins in 1870.  I do see other sources that say Ham was the publisher of the Chronicle—perhaps at a different time? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Please place a comma after all your introductory phrases. I have fixed the missing ones that I found.
I have capitalized the "T" in this block quote: "The legitimate forces ..." This is acceptable and preferred by the MoS.


### Grip (1873–94)
More later. Prhartcom (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Wilson Bengough/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Prhartcom (talk · contribs) 22:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


#### Lead
According to WP:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations, there are reasons to have inline citations in the lead, however those reasons do not apply to this article. It is correct in this article to have no citations in the lead. The reviewer should ensure that each fact mentioned in the lead is again mentioned in the body and cited there, but again, not cited in the lead.
Is "[He] toured chalk talks" a proper phrase? "[He] toured talks" wouldn't be. Perhaps add a word showing the the progressive aspect, something like "[He] toured giving chalk talks".
Modified. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


#### Early life (1851–73)
"politically active: advocated": Perhaps "politically active: he advocated".
Yeeks.  Fixed. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Linking "single tax" to the Georgism article: Acurate, however that article doesn't mention "single tax" in bold in the first sentence or paragraph of its lead, so I believe this qualifies as an WP:EASTEREGG and should be tweaked.
I've gone with [[Georgism|Georgist single tax]], unless someone's got a more elegant wording. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
"at some time": Do you mean "at some point in time" or "at some point"? The adjective-adverb "some time" implies "a long period".
I've gone with "may have sometime sailed ships out of Port Whitby". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
"had run a shop": Perhaps "ran a shop", as that sentence isn't expressing past perfect.
The 1840s is in the past from the perspective of 1851, which is the time where the sentence takes place. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
We have a fact discrepancy between two articles: This one says Bengough worked with editor George Ham of the Whitby Gazette around 1865-1870, but the editor's own article says the name of the paper he edited at that time was the Whitby Chronicle. Please double-check your sources. If this article has it right, even though I know that this GA review shouldn't extend to other articles, I'll just say that it would be great if the name of the paper in the other article could be fixed (or the name fixed in this article, obviously, if the other one has it right).
It appears the Chronicle (from 1857) and Gazette (from 1862) merged in 1912 as the Gazette and Chronicle, which may be the source of confusion in the sources.  Working on figuring this out. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Ham was definitely [http://vitacollections.ca/whitbynews/2450742/page/2 the editor in 1870.  The source is missing the issues for mid-1870, though, so it doesn't have The Murderer's Scalp. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The Chronicle appears to have been published by a W. H. Higgins in 1870.  I do see other sources that say Ham was the publisher of the Chronicle—perhaps at a different time? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Especially since you are the creator and researcher of that George Ham article, which I had not noticed until now, I am hoping you can go now to it and state that the newspaper had both names, using these sources you provide above. It is up to you; I am of course not making it a condition of this review. Prhartcom (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I think I'll have to hunt around for more sources—using the original papers might be OR. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, you mean the sources in the Bengough article.  Right. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Please place a comma after all your introductory phrases. I have fixed the missing ones that I found.
I'm not going to raise a stink about this, but this is something I definitely strongly disagree with.  There's nothing to be gained by adding a comma to a sentence like "In 1813 she left for Beaver Dams."—no ambiguity, no difference in tone when read aloud.  Once upon a time relative clauses were also set off by commas, which looks positively silly today: "I think, that you should take a look at this guy, who looks like Charlie Chaplin." Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I have capitalized the "T" in this block quote: "The legitimate forces ..." This is acceptable and preferred by the MoS.
Okay. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


#### Grip (1873–94)
Please deal with and remove the previous reviewer's HTML comments scattered throughout the article (search for "<!--"). Be open-minded; they may make good points. Or not.
But who is right?—impossible to know, which is why both stories are given. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
How did this effect his business life, and the other way around, plus, this needs to be expanded.: the sources are silent, and we can't assume that it had any sort of effect on his business life or vice versa.  His brother doesn't even mention her in his Life and Work of J. W. Bengough, Canada's Cartoonist. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
How did people negatively see him and his views:
I don't have a lot on this in the sources, but the article does include criticism of his views as bigoted and his poetry as mediocre. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
As of 2015, how did he effect canada:
Well, he's in the middle of having a show at the Royal Ontario Museum, but I haven't found any reviews yet. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The following comment is also still in the article; it is a commented out unsourced sentence that has been in the article since 2005: The Art Gallery of Ontario presented an exhibition of Bengough's drawings in 1969.
I didn't add that, but I didn't want to remove it completely.  I can't find a RS, but it does appear that the show happened. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
And of course, you just commented out the Punch in Canada file.
"Of his only printed cartoons": I'm not sure I understand the meaning of this phrase. And does it need a hyphen? I just added the comma at the end of it.
The first "only" was a mistake. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
"[His] was to found the": Is this correct structure? Even "[His endeavor] was to found the" doesn't seem to work. I think "[He] was to found the" or "[His] was the" is what you're looking for.
The possessive was an error. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Do you think the nota bene mark should come after the footnote, i.e. [25][b], instead of before? In the past, I've ensured mine do that, and you did that once here, but not the other two times. It seems better coming after, and it seems it would be best to be consistent, but I'm not sure about an actual style rule.
Is there a guideline on this?  I don't care one way or the other, but I've run into those who insist on both styles. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Good question; I doubt it, and that figures. I think this should at least be consistent throughout the article. You could fix that and let's be done with it. Prhartcom (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I've changed the punctuation of the quote "impartial, always and on all subjects" to "impartial, always, and on all subjects", as the words "always and" don't work without punctuation. Again, it is okay to touch a quote's formatting (but not wording of course). Feel free to debate.
Change "and lend credibility"→"and lent credibility"
Oops. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Change "The first of was Jester"→"The first of which was Jester"
I'd rahter drop the "of". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Change "He impressed audiences ability to capture the likeness of audiences members"→"He impressed audiences with his ability to capture the likeness of audiences members" Was none of this copy edited?
I've been through it several times, but I've also cut and pasted things around a lot.  I doubt many other people have read the artcle. Fixed. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Bengough's "taste for satire": This is the first time the term is used; it's not even used in the lead. I'm guessing you would rather introduce the term much, much earlier; both in the lead and then as soon as appropriately possible in the body, with a link to the satire article in both.
Okay, I've thrown in "satirical" a couple times—I assumed "political cartoons" implied "satirical". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Bravo, much better, and I hope you agree. Do you think they should be linked to the satire article? I was actually wondering that myself on an article I wrote (that you reviewed) that used that word. I know, it's a toss up, as we wonder whether or not it is an extremely common term. I finally decided it was so relevant to the subject that I went ahead and linked it in the one I wrote. If you agree with that, then go ahead and link it here. Prhartcom (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
"was anti-imperialist, and-capitalist, and anti-militarist.": One too many "and". Oh wait, that first one is a typo. Wouldn't you like to provide links to these? (The third term on Wikipedia leaves out the hyphen, but you wouldn't.)
Linked. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
"anti-French, anti-Catholic, pro-socialist": Same. (The third term on Wikipedia is of course just "socialism".)
I feel like there should be an article on Canadian anti-French sentiment, which Anti-French sentiment doesn't address.  I linked the other two. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
In that case, you are right to not link that one. Prhartcom (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
"Under the new editorship readership" Surely you can see how a comma offsetting the introductory phrase would help matters? That one is followed with "fell until in July 1893 the magazine" I've already inserted the three missing commas.
No, like I said above, I don't really see how they help.  But whatever. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


#### Later life (1895–1923)
Why is The Public linked to The New Republic? That article does not mention this other newspaper.
No, but the source says: "the Chicago based liberal political journal, The Public, predecessor to the modern day New Republic". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Understood. If it were me, I would dash in there to The New Republic article and add that fact and source to that article, stating The Public in bold in the lead, just to help future readers. Of course this review doesn't extend to other articles, but I hope you consider it. Prhartcom (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Caption says "toured chalk talks"; same issue as mentioned earlier.
Fixed. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
"He supported the Liberals ... and a song": He supported a song?
changed to "and with a song". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
"Governor-General" may want to link to Governor General of Canada (I, for one, didn't know about the post). Also link "Associate" from the same sentence, perhaps? What about "elocution" in the next?
I linked GG and elocution, but I'm not sure what to link "Associate" to. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


#### Style
"Bengough's cartooned ... in"→"Bengough cartooned ... in" or "Bengough's cartoons existed ... in"
Dropped the possessive. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
"political cartoons" you have linked to "Editorial cartooning" which redirects to "Editorial cartoonist", but I think you would prefer changing it to link instead to "Editorial cartoon" (leave the plural "s" out of the link).
Done. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
"He believed that humour should serve the interests of the state rather than merely to amuse." This sounds extremely important. It sounds like this (and the chalk talks) just about sums up the man and his work. I wish this could be accentuated somehow, perhaps state this same sentence in the lead. If it is stated this way in the sources in the form of a quote, you could consider putting it in a quote box. I'm glad it's in the second sentence of this section, but it's in the last half of it; the first half would be even better.
"which George Ramsay Cook "'sometimes sophomoric'": I'll bet you can see the error.
Through in a "called". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
"As typical of political cartoons of the time," Hey! You put in the comma! Nice!
"Bengough's aimed less at laughter than at social satire" further down is more of the same important summing up of the man. It doesn't need the "'s".
Dropped it and changed "cartoons" to "cartoonists". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
"Bengough delivered humorous anecdotes, sand, and made impressions" In the sand he delivered, right? Ha ha.
Well, where do you make your impressions? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


#### Politics
"to ask with favours": Do you mean "to ask for favours"?
Er, uh ... an archaic Canadianism?  Fixed. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
"targets were ... aimed at Macdonald ... but his criticisms aimed at Liberals as well": Add a matching "were"; that is: you may want to change last half to "were aimed at Liberals as well"
Argh—changed to "His best-remembered cartoons were those aimed at Macdonald and the Conservatives, but his criticisms targeted Liberals as well". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank-you for spelling it "Québécois" instead of the Wikipedia article's English "Quebecers or Quebeckers". (And I guess we're still waiting for "that day".)
Did I do that?  I'm not 100% sure in this case, but per WP:CANFRENCH "Quebec" and "Montreal" are supposed to be unaccented. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
"Canada ... more open to integration than the US": Are you sure that's accurate? Than the US? That can't be accurate. (Joke.)
 Yes, but the article doesn't actually say whether the picture he painted was true to life. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
" interpreter of current event": Do you mean "events"?
I do believe. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
"in contracts to ... cartoonists as Henri Julien and Sam Hunter": We don't know who those gents are and they're apparently not notable, so this falls flat, but I suppose this is still encyclopedic.
Julien is definitely notable (I'm working on his article), but I negelected to link him in the body (he was linked in an endnote).  A quick scan makes it look like an article could be worked up for Hunter as well—I should leave myself a note to get on that. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I've created a stub for Sam Hunter (cartoonist).  Apparently Bengough and Munter have a show at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto this year.  Haven't come across any reviews of the show yet, though.  It'll still be on when I visit this summer—I hope I get the chance to stop by. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Brilliant job on Hunter's stub article. You still have neglected the link to Julien's article. Enjoy that show! Prhartcom (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
"one of the most interesting sources for the social history of Ontario in the latter nineteenth century": A possible quote box if you are interested.
I've grown away from quote boxes—mainly because anything that floats is a pain to arrange. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
"Library in Hamilton, Ontario, holds the": I removed the incorrectly placed comma between the subject and the verb. I must say, the disparity between your off-the-charts understanding of English grammar and your poor understanding of English comma placement is odd. And yet the rest of your punctuation is as stellar as your writing. You might want to work on that. I know this is of small importance compared to everything you are doing right, but still. You know what I mean.
This is definitely one where the comma is required—it's like a set of parentheses, and you'll find most style guides require it (AP, for instance, and Chicago).  Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I see, because "Ontario" is  parenthetical to Hamilton, I get it now, thanks. I don't mind disagreeing with you on those other commas; as the matter is relatively unimportant. Prhartcom (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


#### Errata
Seeing the portrait of the handsome young Bengough jarred me into sheepishly realizing I had pictured the elderly Bengough of the Infobox throughout the reading of the entire article. Maybe to prevent this from happening to anyone else, you could give the reader a clue in the early part of the article that he is a young man at that point, for example, providing his age when he started the magazine (especially if that is provided in the sources, although you could calculate it; I don't think doing math counts as original research). Or move the portrait, but it looks so good right here.
You're right—I've moved it up earlier in the article (to around when it was made). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
All right; pity to lose it from the published works section, but you have solved this problem; it looks great now. By the way, there is still the File:John Wilson Bengough.jpg image from the 2005 version of this article that perhaps could go next to the published works. Prhartcom (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
"unpublished script for which exists, for which": Not sure what is meant by the awkward "for which exists".
Yeah, I've tweaked this.  I hope it's clear now. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


#### Closing comments
Absolutely stellar research work and writing ability. An easy GA after these relatively minor issues are resolved. I'm fine with what you have already resolved. Great job. All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Merci bien—I believe I've hit all the bullets.  Let me know if I've missed anything or if there are any issues with my responses. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I've asked for action on three or four points above. Once you've seen to those, we can wrap this up. Prhartcom (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
All okay. Congratulations on another GA. Prhartcom (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Re this edit, which replaced a colon with a semicolon.  The semicolon changes the sense of the sentence: "Bengough told of how he took up publishing" introduces the whole of what follows, which is multiple sentences. The semicolon connects "Bengough told of how he took up publishing" with "he had made ... the printer Rolph Bros.", which makes no sense.  This edit degrades the text and should be reverted. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I would say that the semi-colon is the right punctuation mark to use here as all the following sentence breakers are commas. Colons, to me, are used to introduce something that follows preceding text, like a quotation, example or a list. Whereas I would use a semicolon to join two independent clauses; to separate main clauses joined by a conjunctive adverb,  or to separate items in a list that already uses commas. CassiantoTalk 08:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
What relation do these particular sentences have that would make sense to join them?  There is no logic to it.  A period would make sense; a colon even more in the context; a semicolon, none. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)