Talk:John Boydell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
John Boydell is part of WikiProject Shakespeare, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
A fact from John Boydell appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 26 November 2007.
Wikipedia
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Awadewit (talk • contribs • email)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

[edit] Vandalism

This article seems to have been vandalised severely. Who's gonna do something about it? Dddhgg (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portraits

There are several portraits of Boydell. Can we use the one from the DNB? Awadewit | talk 07:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I started by looking at sources that are known to be public-domain. I didn't find any portraits of John Boydell on Wikimedia Commons or in the Library of Congress online collections. I did find that LoC has Gilray's Shakespeare sacrificed; - or - the offering to avarice and The monster broke loose - or - a peep into the Shakespeare Gallery, but no digital copies are yet available.
The next option would be some originally copyrighted portrait that is now PD. I would assume that any original portraits of John Boydell would be safely out of copyright. However, where those portraits have been reused in later works, then I assume we need to consider the copyright of that later work (e.g. DNB) if we choose to copy from them. My assumption is that we would be safe to take a portrait from a publication more that 85 years old. The original DNB for Boydell was published in 1886, so that seems safe. Awadewit: Do you have easy access to this to check for (and scan) a portrait? My local reference library doesn't have the DNB, but apparently it is available in the downtown reference library if necessary.
In terms of online images for which copyright or licensing fees are claimed, I've found the following:
  • 13 depictions and portraits of or including Boydell at the National Portait Gallery (of which nine can be viewed online). All of these are not available PD (license fee required), but there is a good selection, including the Gilray satires Shakespeare sacrificed; - or - the offering to avarice and The monster broke loose - or - a peep into the Shakespeare Gallery
  • pen and wash sketch of Boydell's funerary monument at St Olave, Jewry (at the City of London web site)
Any further ideas? Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's go with NYPL until we have something better (it would also save me a trip to the dusty stacks for the DNB!). I would really like to find this one. I found the "Shakespeare Sacrificed" print somewhere - it's up at Boydell Shakespeare Gallery now. Awadewit | talk 22:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll try to get to it over the weekend. I must have overlooked the Gilray print you had already found. As you can see, I haven't managed much in the way of any edits or additions yet, but I did manage to add a nice engraving of the George Dance's gallery building. Rupert Clayton (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note format

Do you mind if we use the short note format with a bibliography? I find it more aesthetically pleasing and easier to read. The tiny notes make it hard to actually get the source information, in my opinion. Awadewit | talk 10:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll adjust them all to match. What's the procedure for minor references, such as the London Gazette? I'm afraid I'm going to turn your useful Boydell bibliography into a dense list in which it's difficult to see the core works among the peripheral citations? Rupert Clayton (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I tend to include all sources directly related to the subject of the article in the bibliography. Tangential sources only used once, I tend to cite fully in the notes but not in the bibliography. However, I think of the bibliography as a section in and of itself - something that readers might use to further than own research - so I like it to be as complete as possible. Does that make sense? Awadewit | talk 15:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes sense. So anything that serves only as a reference for a particular small fact will stay out of the bibliography and appear only in the Notes. I'm going to change your URL for the Oxford DNB to Oxford's own one if you don't mind. It's still not generally accessible, but more people will be able to use this link. Rupert Clayton (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, and apologies if I have let the cat out of the bag. (I haven't been a podcast listener, but I might check that out.) If you have a brief moment would you check over the Notes and Bibliography and see if it's closer to what you had in mind? I'm not that familiar with MLA style, but it seems to make sense in this context. Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
They look good to me. I'm just going to have check later about how to do the reprint thing for the DNB. I usually include the links to the articles in the notes, if available, just as courtesy to the reader, but that is optional. Your way is more consistent. Awadewit | talk 17:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)