Yo, Mr Turkey. I'll have a look at this one. Will probably be tomorrow but maybe before. Moswentotalky 11:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Overall, I thought this was an interesting, well-written article, which covers the major parts of the woodblock's significance, condition and history well, with enough depth to satisfy the more-than-casual reader. I have a few queries on the text, below, but then I would be happy to promote this to GA. Good work! Moswentotalky 10:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies, I'm delighted to promote this to GA. Moswentotalky 16:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
"It is engraved on both sides for printing" - this reads slightly awkwardly. "It is engraved on both sides" would probably suffice, as woodblocks were used for printing
"That the block" - Starting a sentence with 'That' would annoy a lot of English speakers. "The fact that", or reordering the sentence, would be better.
My first reaction to theat was that those kinds of English speakers deserve to be annoyed. Instead, I've changed it to "The block was likely not intended to be printed using a press, as that would have defaced one side." Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Your second reaction was more conducive to me passing this article, good choice ;) Moswentotalky 16:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
" of the 14th-century woodblock printing in Europe." - "of woodblock printing in Europe in the 14th century"? The "the" seems odd at the moment
Yikes! That got scrambled. It was supposed to be "the 14th-century arrival of woodblock printing in Europe". Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
" Secular prints such as on playing cards were" - (optional change) adding commas either side of the "such as on playing cards" might improve readability
I've changed this to "Playing cards and other secular prints were also popular." Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Much better, good thinking. Moswentotalky 16:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
"The Bois Protat is the oldest surviving European woodblock" - This text seems redundant in light of the Background section above
re 1899 date - Page 8 of the Parshall volume dates it to 1898. This would seem to me to be at least an equal, if not better source, than Ross, unless you can point me to another source that supports the 1899 date.
I'm going to look into this a bit more. Both dates seem to be showing up in multiple sources, although it looks like 1898 is the more common. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The 1898 date does seem to appear in a greater number of reliable-seeming sources. I've changed it, and sourced it to Parshall & Schoch. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for researching this. Your diligence is inspiring! Moswentotalky 16:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
In the lead, you talk about the woodblock's viability at the time of discovery, whereas in the history section it reads as though it was usable at the time of discovery, but has "not held up well" since 1899. Maybe clarify?
I'm not sure I want to clarify this without a source specifically saying so, by my interpratation was that the block was in poor condition when it was found, but Protat made prints anyways; afterward, because of its obvious decrepit condition, it was not used to make further impressions. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
"in a state" - this appears twice in quick succession. Change one to "in a condition"?
"The Bois Protat remained in Protat's family, before it was entrusted to Bouchot." - When was it entrusted to Bouchot? I could not see this in the footnoted source.
This is the one source in the article I don't have access to, and none of the source I do have mention this, so I can't say. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
All these check out, are great additions to the article, and captioned in an exemplary way
I don't have any major problems with the reliability of these sources or the way they are used, although I can't access Blum or Bouchot. The source I'm least pleased with is White, but as this is non-controversial background material, it's absolutely fine for GA.
I am pleased with White, just less so than the others, mainly because of the purpose for which the book was written (art therapy) and the specialisms of the publisher. Moswentotalky 16:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)