Talk:Ehrhardt (typeface)

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Typography (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Netherlands (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject iconThis article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
 GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Reference queryEdit

The reference in the article, Miklós (Nicholas) Tótfalusi Kis, links to the Hungarian Wikipedia. Unfortunately there does not seem to be an English article for this person yet; neither can I create one, as I don’t speak Hungarian. Perhaps someone can help out? 188.97.232.72 (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Deliberately not includedEdit

An interesting sidenote is that Cyril Burt, a psychologist, wrote up a set of tests of reactions to fonts which included Ehrhardt late in Morison's life. (This seems to have been a Monotype/Morison project in all but name - Morison wrote the foreword, it was published by CUP, with which Morison had close connections, and all but one of the fonts tested were Monotype's.) Ehrhardt...doesn't do well, in fact scoring bottom among the old-style text faces tested. I'm putting this here for anyone interested, but not mentioning it in the article...because Cyril Burt is very credibly accused of faking a lot of data (to the best of my knowledge not this, but it happened in the same timeframe) and destroying his research notes to cover it up. So that's why no mention of it in case anyone wonders! Blythwood (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

GA ReviewEdit

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

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 01:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Initial reading: I think there is a lot of good material here, well sourced, that can likely be turned into a good article. But the organization (Good article criteria 1b) is a total disaster. The "Digitisations and alternative versions" and "References" sections are ok, but the lead and "History" section haphazardly mix together aspects of the subject that I think would be better grouped into separate sections:

  • The historical background to the creation of the font, including Kis' original work and milieu, and (in a separate paragraph or subsection) the later fashion for creation of other revival fonts
  • The choice to make this particular font, who did what when, and the actual design process by which the font was created
  • A description of the characteristics of the font: how do its features distinguish it from other fonts, both those with similar designs and those farther from it, and what variations in letter forms (e.g. bold vs roman) does it provide? Does it include an italic already, or is it commonly paired with an italic, and if so which ones match it well in their characteristics such as x-height?
  • How the font was received, what critics said about it, and what significant publications have used it

The lead section itself should preferably only summarize what is described in more detail in later sections (MOS:LEAD) and would only need footnotes for direct quotes or other material that remains in the lead and is not a summary of later detail. So, before I read more carefully for how well it meets the other good article criteria, I would like to see a reorganization that takes these issues into account. (I don't think you need to add more new content to the article in such a reorganization, only to change the ordering and section headings of what's already there and possibly work on the transition prose at the starts of the new sections.)

Looking ahead to a more careful reading: the most important image (a sample of the font itself) is already present, but I think there may be scope for adding more, for instance, of the (old enough to be out of copyright) original Kis type on which it was based, Kis himself, or the principal desigeners of the font (good article criteria #6). And when you cite book sources, please include page numbers for the specific information that you're using the citation for (good article criteria #2).

David Eppstein (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! I think I tried too hard to keep the article short. It should now be a lot better. Main improvements are:
  • It's now split into more sections, with more information on Kis.
  • More pictures, including of the equipment used to make metal type on a Monotype machine. I wasn't able to find one of Morison that's certainly out of copyright, but everything else is there.
  • Refs updated with more information about page numbers, Google Books links added where possible.

Blythwood (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks — I 'll make a second reading soon. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Second readingEdit

Still a few minor cleanups left to do, but almost there.

Good article criteria
1a. Prose quality: generally good but see below for some minor issues
1b. Organization: Much better, and no longer a problem
2a. Reference formatting: some minor issues detailed below
2b. Source reliability: mostly good but see comment on reference 19
2c. No original research: no problems found
2d. No copyright violations or plagiiarism: none found
3a. Broad coverage: Much better, and no longer a problem
3b. No unnecessary detail: none found
4. Neutrality: no problems found
5. Stability: has undergone significant change since last review (appropriately) but is not the subject of any significant controversy
6a. Image licensing: no problems found
6b. Image relevance and captioning: no problems found
Lead
Now summarizes the rest of the article rather than containing new material
Historical background
Matrix (printing) should probably be linked for its first use
"His identity was rediscovered": whose identity?
Modern history
"Its original working title": presumably "it" refers to the Ehrhardt revival but it's not entirely clear
Yannis Haralambous quote: why is this single-quoted instead of double-quoted? The same applies to many later quotes as well. MOS:QUOTEMARKS seems clear that double quotes are required. It might be a reasonable stylistic choice to use single quotes for letters and double quotes for actual quotes, but the usage here seems less consistent than that.
Reception
"An extremely rare infant variant": what is an infant font? It's not a term with which I'm familiar and web searches just turn up specific fonts with no explanation.
References
Lawson (ref.2) has a link going to page 117 on Google books, but no page number in the actual reference.
Are references 12 and 13 (both Heiderhoff's "The Rediscovery of a Type Designer: Miklos Kis") different, or is one just a reprint of the other? If so they could probably be consolidated into a single re-used reference.
Reference 19 "Comments on Typophile thread" is of dubious reliability; see WP:USERGENERATED.
Reference 27 ("Stanley Morison: a portrait") is missing any information about who wrote it, who published it, or where in its 64pp the information cited to it appears.
In reference 40, Luc Devroye should be linked.
External links
"A long, passionate Kis" is redundant here, as it already appears in the references.

David Eppstein (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: - OK, most of that fixed. I will let you know when I'm ready to request another readthrough as there are a few other things I want to think about.

I have some comments on ref19 though. I freely admit it isn't an ideal to cite a forum thread, but the commenter is authoritative - Simon Daniels is a very well-known figure in digital type who manages typography at Microsoft, and his source Robin Nicholas worked at Monotype in his entire career from the 1960s to the 2010s, being involved in digitisations which worked from the original master drawings used to prepare metal type. (Microsoft collaborated with British Monotype extensively for font digitisations in the 1980s and 1990s, which is why a lot of their fonts are on Windows like Times New Roman, Twentieth Century and Gill Sans.) It can be cut if you insist as it's a minor point, but it's interesting and a vivid set of comments, and my impression is that few are better-placed today to know the ins and outs of Monotype's archives than Nicholas. Plus as that forum no longer exists, it's not accessible to anyone not in the know, so I would like to keep it. (I only stumbled across it through looking up comments on Devroye's page which quotes it.) If you want I can just put it on the talk page with the Cyril Burt info. I could cite it from Devroye, but that's a weak solution since all he's doing is quoting the forum thread.

Otherwise have a good Christmas holiday and thanks for the feedback. Blythwood (talk) 13:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Most of the issues above have been handled, and it sounds like the issue with reference 19 will fall under the "recognized expert" clause of WP:SPS, so I'm going to go ahead and pass this. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: - Brilliant. None of the things I was thinking of adding are that important, so that all sounds great. The one thing I need to do now is consolidate the Heiderhoff reference which I need to look up the reference code for. It's the same article; enough of the article is on Google Books to get the gist but the book is probably more accessible for the serious so I wanted to have both cited. Do you think this process (this is my first GA nom) has given me sufficient experience to start doing reviews myself? If am planning to reciprocate by contributing to that. Blythwood (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, please do. The GA process greatly needs more good reviewers. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ehrhardt (typeface). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletionEdit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)