Talk:Johannes Gutenberg

From Citizendium
Revision as of 13:31, 23 April 2007 by imported>Pat Palmer (comment from an intended author)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Article Checklist for "Johannes Gutenberg"
Workgroup category or categories Library and Information Science Workgroup, History Workgroup, Linguistics Workgroup [Editors asked to check categories]
Article status Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article? Yes
Basic cleanup done? Yes
Checklist last edited by Pat Palmer 13:16, 23 April 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.





The WP article has lately been much improved, and the improvements have been merged into this version. DavidGoodman 20:21, 18 November 2006 (CST) The improvements through Dec.8 have also been included. DavidGoodman 22:20, 7 December 2006 (CST) However, the new Infobox did not work, probably because of the differences in templates. I have retained the old one, but I am not sure it will work better.DavidGoodman 22:23, 7 December 2006 (CST)

If this article was originally from WP, then make sure to check the "Content from Wikipedia?" box, unless you're the sole author of it over at WP.--Robert W King 13:24, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
I have unchecked the "from Wikipedia" because this article is undergoing substantial revision (or at least, I intend to do so very soon). I've added the article checklist and done basic cleanup, but I think it needs a good deal of work before its ready for primetime. It needs better references for one thing. Also, I want to look up the issue of legal wrangling; I seem to recall that Gutenberg was tied up in court for years due to disputes over who really invented the press. Finally, I think the emphasis of the article can be improved to "tell the story" of this seminal invention, the politics surrounding it, and its importance in making written materials available to a larger public (written books were formerly done by hand and cost so much that only wealthy people and churches had them; the article as written does not capture the dramatic importance of this invention in history).Pat Palmer 13:31, 23 April 2007 (CDT)