# Talk:Vincent Figgins

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vincent Figgins/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Colin M (talk · contribs) 21:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(Currently working on writing up feedback. Stay tuned.) Colin M (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Overall, I think the article is in an excellent state. I just have a few small suggestions/concerns, mostly about the prose:

Source for year of birth?
Macmillan. I don't know what his source was, but it must be about right as his age of 77 on death is on his tombstone.
Sorry, I should have been more explicit - I was hoping you could add an inline citation for the YoB. Colin M (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Added. So it's not the only source in the intro which would look awkward, I've placed the date in the body text.
He married Elizabeth and had the sons... Who is Elizabeth? Referring to someone by name like this creates the impression that this is someone the reader is already expected to be aware of.
Nothing known at all about her besides her age from her tombstone. I've slightly reworded this.
And also cited the tombstone as a source for her details
Bensley, the printer of the Macklin’s Bible, First mention of Bensley. Can we get a full name? (I'm assuming this is a person. But perhaps it's a company? In which case that could be made clearer). Also I'm assuming the the should be deleted?
Yes, added.
It took me a while to figure out that "Double Pica" was a term referring to a generic font size, rather than a specific named font. Just want to confirm, is this term "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority" of RS, per MOS:CAPS?
Yes, added earlier. For capitalisation, will check this. Certainly it's capitalised in the source.
An ngram search shows the capitalized and lowercase versions being about equally common. And such a search will tend to overestimate the prevalence of the capitalized form, because it's not just indexing running text, but also things like section headings. So I think it should probably be lowercase. But MOS:CAPS is actually not one of the Manual of Style sections that WP:GACR requires compliance with, so this is just a friendly suggestion. Colin M (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Have looked at a variety of major historical works on printing I've used as sources and they all capitalise size names. I'm inclined to follow them.
His sons also issued specimens soon after taking over management in 1838 and in 1845. This is a little confusing. They took over management in 1838 and in 1845? Or is it saying they issued specimens (soon after taking over management in 1838) and also issued specimens (in 1845)? Perhaps the wording could be clarified.
Exactly, yes, rephrased.
Would be nice if the two mentions of the Greek typeface project could be combined or placed side-by-side.
Will think about this. I originally covered research in chronological order, first Wolpe's, then Bowman's, hence the ordering.
If it's OK I'm inclined to keep the current ordering which I think flows well.
It still retains the original cast iron railings bearing a VJF monogram. I'm guessing VJF are Figgins' initials? But this isn't totally clear from context, since the article doesn't seem to ever mention a middle name/initial.
Vincent & James Figgins. Fixed.
Also added the image editor Dormskirk very kindly visited the site to photograph of the railings along with the factory.
Mr. Hunt was infirm as in talent as in virtue"..."Mr. Hunt [said that] as to Confused by the quotation marks here, and the one at the very end of the blockquote. Is the quote mark before the ellipsis meant to be a closing quote? And if so where is the opening quote that matches with it?
Yes, it's a bit awkward as it's reported speech. Will rephrase. Incidentally, I plan on adding to the talk page a comment for anyone interested listing things I've uncovered that I'm not sure can be sourced to include in the article. Other references that seem to refer to him, for instance a joke in a newspaper article pop up every now and then. There's also a book saying that that he was the son of a bookkeeper,but it doesn't say where this information comes from (apprenticeship records, possibly, from the context),
After reviewing the source of the quote, I'm still confused by the use of quotation marks. It seems like the Cobbett text is all presented as paraphrases of dialog rather than direct quotes (other than perhaps the quotes from the crowd, like the "Off, off!"), so I still don't understand the purpose of the quotation marks around the ellipsis and at the end of the blockquote. Taking a step back, I wonder if it would actually be better to just briefly summarise the relevant content of the article in wikivoice rather than using a direct quote. The quote, as presented, is pretty difficult to follow, and it seems like a lot of space dedicated to an event which is seemingly not of great importance in the larger context of his career. I sort of have a similar feeling about the nightwatchmen quote, in that it also lacks any indication of contextual significance. I could imagine that Figgins might have made hundreds or thousands of similar sorts of remarks at meetings in his capacity as councilman. Colin M (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I've added clarification that the speech is reported, and tweaked the beginning of the quote so it's clear what's going on. I definitely think the quotes should be included-they're the only thing here that really gives much sense of Figgins' world and his personality.
(Sorry for the late response - was offline for the last few days).
So on the technical level of the formatting of the quote, I'm still confused as to what the quotation marks signify. Since the text as a whole is inside a blockquote, normally quotation marks would only be used if the quoted text itself contained quotation marks (and then they should be single quotes, per MOS:QWQ). But it doesn't seem like the quoted text does include quotation marks.
Re the significance of this quote and the next, can I ask why you chose these particular quotes over other contemporary sources that talk about his career as a councilman? Is it just that these were the only ones you could find? Or do these quotes illustrate some particular aspects of his career that other quotes could not? As a reader, I don't take away much from these quotes about Figgins's character or career - especially the second quote. The first quote does suggest that his political career involved some controversy or conflict, though reading the full context of the quote, it seems like it's "Mr. Hunt" driving the conflict in this case, and that he was attacking many of the councilmen, not just Figgins. It would be ideal if there were a secondary source that could be cited to put these quotes into context. Colin M (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I've done some research and I have found context for both quotes. The election was actually written up quite thoroughly by two biographers of Cobbett, which I hadn't previously known, so I do now have a lot more context and two extra sources. Mosley (1958) briefly mentions the episode, although with so little context I don't think it's worth citing. (Incidentally I emailed Professor Mosley around when I nominated this article for GA asking if he had any feedback, but of the two email addresses I've seen for him one no longer works and the other I received no reply from.) I've also found a source on the topic of nightwatchmen quote, which even discusses a contemporary cartoon on the topic (no picture of Figgins, though, sadly). I've removed the quotes inside the quote, which I agree don't work, and reordered the account of the election campaign against Hunt to start with an explanation of the event rather than just jumping into the quote. I've also cleaned up the formatting of a few citations, and added a couple of extra links to the terminology of what exactly being a councilman meant.
The additional context around the quotes is great! I also think it was a good idea to organize content into a "Politics" subsection. I do have a small concern about the second image in that section. As a reader, I don't know what the "Lord Mayor's dinner" is, and it hasn't been mentioned anywhere in the body text. I can imagine that it's some formal event that Figgins would have attended as Common Councilman, but that's just a guess. The connection to Figgins should be more explicitly spelled out in the caption. Colin M (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'm happy to leave it out and set it aside. The image caption is that it "is dedicated to the Common Council of the City of London", which is how I found it, but I don't have sourcing on what that means or who normally attended the Lord Mayor's Dinner around that time, and really included it a visual of what the City of London's governance looked like around that time. (I can only find one other image of the Court of Common Council itself meeting from the right period, which is in 1808 so slightly too early.) I'm happy to put it aside for now (apart from anything else, it's a bad scan that isn't vertical). I hope that ticks off the GA checklist concerns. Blythwood (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
The following are not really WP:GACR issues, just some extra suggestions/observations which you should feel free to take or leave:

The gallery section is very effective, though I think it's also still worth including one or two specimens in the "Typefaces" section to illustrate some of the points made in the prose. This is sort of a matter of taste, but I think that if there are no extant images of Figgins himself, it could even be worth including an image in the intro of one or two of his most significant/representative typefaces.
Yes, you've reminded me. I do have a scan of his signature I might upload as a heading image under fair use.
Sounds good. Also, it shouldn't be necessary to invoke fair use. Signatures are generally not copyrightable (see c:Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag), and even if Figgins' were, the copyright would be long expired. So it should be fine to upload to commons. Colin M (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Added the image of his signature now as a heading image. I know what you mean about the images ideally being grouped to the text, but I've not really found a better arrangement without introducing a lot of headings and clear statements which I feel would disrupt the flow of the text too much.
If a reader doesn't know what "typefounder" means, they're going to have a hard time figuring it out by following the wikilink target for that term. (The specific term "typefounder" doesn't appear at all in the target article). I would suggest giving a brief gloss in the text, or rewording this somehow. (There's also the more unconventional approach of linking to wikt:type-founder)
Rephrased with more links.
After an apprenticeship with Joseph Jackson, he established his own type foundry in 1792. Maybe "an apprenticeship with typefounder Joseph Jackson"? The way it's written now almost suggests the reader is supposed to already know who Jackson is. Alternatively, could just defer mention of him until the body.
Fair point. Not much is known about Jackson but I think he's notable enough for a stub article. Will draft one.
Article on Jackson added.
His company was extremely successful and, Did this company not have a name? I noticed the body also refers to it just as "Figgins' company".
No name: his specimen is just issued by "Vincent Figgins, Letter Founder".
Figgins introduced or popularised both slab-serif and sans-serif typefaces, now two of the main genres of typeface. Not clear whether this is saying he introduced/popularized the genres themselves or particular typefaces belonging to those genres. (Though the body does clarify this.)
Yes, the former: he is the first known typefounder to market sans-serif typefaces that anybody used and the first known to sell slab-serifs at all.
On my first readthrough, I was a little unclear on the use of the term specimen. I'm wondering if there's a wikilink that could be provided or a brief gloss that would help a reader like me who's basically ignorant of typography. (Later, when I got to the gallery and the external links, I was able to figure out what this term was referring to, but it would be nice to help the reader understand this earlier if possible.)
Yes, rephrased.
Small thing, but the 1828 quote at first seems to be presented as being in the voice of Hunt, which made me do a double-take when I got to the "his opponent" part. Might want to rework the text that introduces the quote.
Yes, will think about phrasing for this.
Fixed, I hope, as discussed above.
The second part of Figgins' career coincided with the rise of the mass-market printed poster and an increasing need for dramatic display typefaces. Could be helpful to give some indication of approximately what date range we're talking about here. It's not immediately clear whether we're talking about a portion of the career described in the above section, or if the previous section was just describing the first part of his career, with this section talking about the second. (Though again, this ambiguity is resolved as the reader continues through the section.)
Now explained better, especially by a more strict chronological ordering of the text.
(One thing I still need to do is a few citation checks, though I don't expect this will result in any action items.) Colin M (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

This is really excellent feedback, thanks! Exactly what I was hoping a GA review would suggest. I've added comments line-by-line above. Blythwood (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick updates. Glad to hear the feedback was useful! I did a spot check of some citations and everything looks fine there. The only unresolved issue above that I think has a bearing on WP:GACR is the Cobbett quote - once we reach a resolution on that, I'll be happy to pass this. Colin M (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
That's great, thanks! I'm a bit busy this weekend but hope to have some changes figured out in the next few days.  Blythwood (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Colin M, I hope everything is fixed now. Blythwood (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 It's good! Thanks for your patience. I'm satisfied that this meets the GA criteria. Nice work! I did have a few further comments/suggestions that came to mind on my final read-through, but since they're not GA-specific, I'll just add them to the article talk page shortly. Colin M (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

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

There's some language that's arguably a little editorializing or more colorful than one might expect for an encyclopedia article, such as Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of Figgins' career was..., Under the pyrotechnics of Figgins' display faces,...
There are a lot of images toward the end, some of marginal relevance. You might consider cutting a couple. e.g. is it really helpful to the reader to see what the library containing most of his remaining materials looks like?
the "Black Man" quote is quite long. I think at least the first two sentences could be cut without the reader missing much.
the list of sources at the beginning of the "Career" section is pretty unusual, though I suppose it is helpful to be able to refer to those sources by name in the remainder of the section. I don't actually have a suggestion here, I guess it just made me wonder why I've never seen this device used in other articles.
there are a couple places where a short gloss for a technical term might be helpful in saving some readers from having to click a wikilink (e.g. in the "Typefaces" section, when you first mention slab-serif fonts). Though obviously it's a trade-off depending on what proportion of the audience you think will already be familiar with these terms.
the intro is pretty short relative to the body. You might consider expanding it a bit, perhaps to mention his political career, or to go into a little more detail on his typeface designs.
Colin M (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, not sure what is going on here, but this article reads like a poorly written school essay, not a Wikipedia article. It deviates greatly from established Wikipedia norms and quality standards.
First, it could use substantial condensing. There is a great deal here which is of questionable notability, and there is a great deal that is perhaps notable, but is highly verbose. The extensive quotations may be able to be trimmed down to salient content as well.
Second, it needs substantial reorginisation. For example, Wikipedia articles should not lead off with a declaration of "main sources" (which is bizarrely placed under the "Career" section for some unknown reason). Instead, only standard citations placed at the end of the article should be used.  
Also misplaced under the "Career" section is the subject’s life history, including birth, marriage, and children.  This could be moved to another section, but family info in this case probably lacks the notability to be included in the article. Family are not routinely discussed in Wikipedia biographies, unless they make an extraordinary impact on the subject…particularly if they make a specific impact that alters career paths (e.g. subject went to sea after the tragic death of his wife and daughter) or affects the quality or achievements for which the subject is notable.
These are just a few examples of problems in the article which need addressed.  A disinterested 3rd party or parties need to extensively edit or rewrite this article to bring it up to Wikipedia standards.
18:44, 23 November 2025 UTC [refresh]

Obviously I disagree (as the editor who reviewed this for GA status), but if you think it doesn't meet the GA criteria, you should feel free to initiate a reassessment (but just boldly removing the GA template is out-of-process, hence why your edit was reverted).
Your suggestion about having a separate section covering his family is a good one, and I see it's already been adopted.
As for the list of sources, I did mention that in my comments above. It's unusual, but I think it's useful in this case because it facilitates in-text attribution. Though perhaps it should also be moved into a separate section now, since we refer to these sources by name in multiple sections, not just within "Career".
I do agree that some of the quotations could be trimmed or replaced with paraphrases, and I mentioned as much above, but I don't think this represents a violation of the GA criteria. Colin M (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed feedback and apologies for my delay replying. I do appreciate you taking the time to give some detail about what concerned you. I agree with you on balance that the section on his life belonged more in a separate section, and have broken it out. I also recognise your point that the article has a lot of text but I hope it's clearly written, organised and signposted. I see Colin has written a reply which has the same good sense as his GA review.Introducing the sources was a late decision: I realised that although there's lots of articles and short references to Figgins, the three really key summaries of his career are these ones, written within Figgins' lifetime by people who knew him well or based on information from his grandson, and I realised late on that I was spending a lot of time explaining what they are in random places in the article, breaking into the subject of a paragraph and making the structure a bit shapeless. I felt it made sense to introduce them upfront so I can say "according to Hansard" and people will know what I'm talking about.Regarding the length...well, I tried to make the article comprehensive. I came to Figgins from being interested in his font designs, but he could be of interest to people interested in graphic design, social history of mass literacy and posters, industrial history and industrial relations, local government and politics, maybe colonialism too as he accumulated types for different parts of the world the British Empire had contact with. He had a long career at a pivotal point for printing as it moved from printing books to posters. There's a lot of angles there. It's a GA and GAs are supposed to be comprehensive. The article isn't in any way a grab-bag, though: I have a lot of material like passing mentions which I couldn't integrate into the article. I may post some of it on the talk page as suggested directions for future expansion of the article for anyone interested.While I realise responses to anything are personal, one thing I do disagree with very strongly is the "Family are not routinely discussed in Wikipedia biographies, unless they make an extraordinary impact on the subject." comment. That's the style of writing that makes "great man" or "inspiring and edifying lives" books. And frequently ignores how much "great men" were supported by their wives! Although that's not very relevant here. I mean, the article doesn't write much about Figgins' relationship with his family, about which there's very little material! It barely does more than name his wife and some of his kids. I read those books when I was a kid too and loved them, but that isn't quite the job of Wikipedia articles, which are more organised as history for better or worse.As to what you can do if you think the article has major flaws, as Colin quite rightly says you can request a GA reassessment (or request an edit for another editor to take a look at your proposed changes, I guess). Blythwood (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

 This article is the subject of an educational assignment at College of Staten Island/City University of New York supported by GLAM/MoMA and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page. 
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)