Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/William Barley/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

William Dullat edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Article about a bookseller and publisher in Elizabethan England. My goal is to get this to WP:GA or WP:FA (although I wonder if it might be too short for the latter). Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks, BuddingJournalist 19:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article! I can think of a few things:
  • You might want to include a statement as to why someone could get arrested for not registering as a bookseller (I know when I write articles on Renaissance composers/musicians, I always have to go back and re-read for the possibility I'm making assumptions about my readers' background knowledge). So another paragraph about the situation in the publishing field, perhaps before the third paragraph under Draper's Company, might be helpful.
  • The lead could be crafted more into a statement of general significance and influence than it is; currently it launches straight off into biographical material.
  • For the case where he was found guilty (last paragraph under Draper's Company) was that in 1598? What happened (was he imprisoned, or merely fined?)
It's going to be good. You write well; the sources are high-quality; material is cited. Nice job! Glad to see someone else interested in this period. Antandrus (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, one of the things I struggled with was weaving succinct explanations of some of the idiosyncrasies of the time, such as the printing patents and the role of the Stationers' company. I think you're right about needing additional explanatory material before the Oxford arrest.
  • I'll work on making the lead sparkle more and discuss his overall importance. :) It is rather dull at the moment.
  • Yup, that was in 1598. What actually happened is unclear to me. Johnson quotes that they were committed "to the prison of the Fleete", so I guess I could say that they were sentenced to prison. However, Johnson never actually discusses whether they served any time or for how long. Presumably any prison time was short, since works bearing Barley's name appeared in 1598 and 1599.
  • Thanks for the comments! BuddingJournalist 20:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just add what an exciting and well-written addition this article is to WP? Best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Myke! BuddingJournalist 22:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting article and a welcome addition.

  • I thought it was a little unclear about monopolies and patents/copyrights. I get the impression that to be assigned was to have a patent for particular books, but I'm not sure. Clearly Barley did not have a patent for all music publishing. Also, it is not clear to me how Barley goes on publishing under the patent if it is the same as Morley's "defunct" monopoly (Two years later, Morley died, taking with him the music printing monopoly). Monopolies are for the whole trade, whereas patents are like copyrights, no? (Morley was also using East, so Barley was not his exclusive publisher.) It might be worth spelling out the previous history of the monopoly; I know that Tallis and Byrd were granted the monopoly for 21 years. When did this elapse, and what rights did Byrd have after Tallis died? Was Barley already publishing music before Morley took up the monopoly, as implied in the lead? (Were the composers angry because he was unassigned to do so?) What is the transition or relation between the patents of East and Barley? Did Barley print instrumental music because that had a separate monopoly to vocal music? I know that James I suspended monopolies in 1603. Did that affect individual patents?
Good point. I have added a paragraph that places Barley in the greater context of Elizabethan music publishing and that discusses Tallis, Byrd, and Morley. How does it look now? As far as monopolies vs. patents, in my research, the terms seemed to be used interchangeably (for example, I've seen the Tallis and Byrd monopoly also referred to as a patent). Is this not standard? BuddingJournalist 22:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some publishers ignored his claim, however, and many music books printed during his later life gave him no recognition. What does recognition mean here? Did he require a fee (as with the East case)? If some publishers ignored his claim, what happened with those who did not ignore it? Barley himself published four books under his patent. From this I take it that the patent gave a right to recognition but not an exclusive right to publish, since he only published four books and others were publishing books. If he had the sole right to publishing, the courts would surely have banned or closed down other publishers. In short, what was "Barley's patent", exactly?
Unfortunately, scholars too are not sure as to what exactly "Barley's patent" entailed. It stemmed from the Morley patent, which meant that Barley and his assignees had exclusive rights to publish music (except metrical psalters), but it was clearly not very well enforced. Many of the music works published during this period do mention him on the imprint ("_publisher's name_, assigne of William Barley", which is what I meant by recognition), but many others do not. It could be that Barley was solely interested in collecting a fee and anyone who wished to print music needed to acknoledge him with "assigne of..." on the imprint. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of what happened to those who ignored his claim. Adams makes no acknowledgment of Barley, even after the court required him to. It's puzzling. BuddingJournalist 22:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Barley published Anthony Holborne's Pavans, Galliards, Almains (1599), the first work of music for instruments rather than voices to be printed in England." Is this certain? Does this mean the first with no vocal airs? Although the Byrd-Tallis monopoly for choral music would have crowded out non-vocal music, there had been a publishing spree before that time which I am sure included publications of transcriptions for instruments of airs and ballads, to be played without voices. I think it needs to be clearer what is meant here.
  • This is according to Grove. I assumed they meant the first work dedicated entirely to instrumental music. I'll do some more research though on this point. BuddingJournalist 02:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barley's role in Elizabethan music publishing is a "contentious" one. It's not clear to me whether this means Barley was contentious or that his role has proved a contentious issue for historians.
Yes, I thought it might been that Barley was contentious, which it also seems that he was.qp10qp (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded and added a sentence with some of the disparate opinions about him and his role. BuddingJournalist 22:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "partnering with". I've not heard this usage before, and suspect it might be AE.
  • Switched to "After becoming the assignee to". Should it be "assignee to" or "assignee for"? Yeah, the article was written in AE, as I wasn't confident enough in my British spellings; glad you've audited it for British English in your copyeditBuddingJournalist 02:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "assignee of". It might be worth linking to Assignment (law) at first mention. qp10qp (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. BuddingJournalist 22:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Two of the first works of music that he published were of dubious quality. According to scholars, contemporaries? At this stage in the article, an unexplained value judgement is a bit jarring.

  • Both. I recast the sentence to highlight the criticism by contemporaries.
This works.qp10qp (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With Creede, Barley was involved in the publication of A Looking Glass for London and England (1594) and The True Tragedy of Richard III (1594)". This seems a little bald. What is the significance of these books?
  • Barley may have been the same William Barley who opened a branch office in Oxford. From what follows, it would seem certain that he was.
  • Do you mean that the evidence of what follows seems fairly certain, or that the way its written makes it seem so? If the former, I think I still want to keep the "may have been", as Johnson hedges as well on this point.
I don't think one can go from a "may" to a statement as if of fact, particularly with such circumstantial detail. What I do in these cases is disentangle the two views. I give the mainstream view as a fact. Then I say, either in the text or in a note, "Scholar x, however, expresses doubt that this was the same William Barley", or whatever. I think it helps the reader to put the doubt second, not first. qp10qp (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Unfortunately, Johnson is the only that discusses this, so I guess his is the mainstream view? :) He seems to think that it's quite probable that it was the same Barley, but he doesn't present it as fact. I've reworded the beginning of that paragraph so that it emphasizes that its probable rather than doubt. Is that OK? BuddingJournalist 22:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1595, the Stationers' Company fined Barley 40 shillings for illicitly publishing a number of works" / "That same day, the Company's court settled a lawsuit Barley had brought against East concerning the copyrights on certain music books." Could the nature of this court be explained?
  • Did Barley author any of his publications, or were they all by others?
  • What instruments were his instrumental publications for? Lute, virginals?
  • Morley's pick of Barley as an assignee (rather than experienced printers such as Thomas East or Peter Short, both of whom had previously worked with Morley) is surprising. It could be that Morley was looking for a successful commercial outlet for his publications, and Barley's shop fit perfectly. Barley may have also had access to a music fount. This reads to me as if the other publishers didn't, but they must have done. If Barley had already published music before he worked with Morley, he must have had access to a fount, or to a printer who had one.
Barley used woodbocks for his previous works of music. However, as you point out, Johnson's reasoning here does seem a bit flimsy. I did some more reading, and Smith's argument makes more sense to me. I have rewritten that paragraph. BuddingJournalist 22:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • His widow, Harper. Why was she still called Harper if she was married to him? Her first name would be nice here, too, I think.
  • Could we have a little more about some of the books he published (something from an introduction or two, perhaps)? Otherwise the publishing story sounds a little perfunctory, as if these works were contentless. And if he was a pioneer, I think we should hear more about just how. One thing I do know is that there was an extraordinary flowering of music at this time, and it might be worth providing a touch of general musical context for the music section.

A very intriguing article and a pleasure to read. qp10qp (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks so much for the great copyedit and review. I'll look into your comments and queries over the next week or so. BuddingJournalist 02:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/William_Barley/archive1&oldid=773481381"