Talk:Printing press

Remove Fictitious Statement

"The balls were made of dog skin leather, because it has no pores..." This statement is false. Dog's skin does have pores for hair and sweat. The citation link for this false information leads to an error page. Searching for the title of the cited source shows it has nothing to do with the printing press but rather the dangers of being a modern journalist. Every other source I have seen says these ink balls were primarily made of sheep skin. 2601:245:C101:96D0:9CDA:8D8B:811D:39D7 (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add content on contemporary criticism of the printing press for NPOV balance

Add content on contemporary criticism of the printing press for Neutrality (in my own words as opposed to LLMs)

  • What I think should be changed:

The article's "Circulation of information and ideas" section currently has only one brief sentence about criticism: "On the other hand, the printing press was criticized for allowing the dissemination of information that may have been incorrect."

This should be expanded with the following content added after that sentence:

Several critics of the printing press around that time period raised concerns about possible societal effects. For instance, the Dominican friar Filippo de Strata around 1473-1474 characterized the printing press as a "whore" (meretrix) compared to the "virgin" pen. He said that most printers focused more on profits than accuracy and classical scholarship.[1] Additionally, the Benedictine abbot Johannes Trithemius in his 1492 treatise De laude scriptorum manualium argued that printing would make monks intellectually lazy, that books on paper were less durable than parchment manuscripts, and that hand-copying sacred text was a spiritual activity that could not be replicated through technological imitation.[2]

Additionally, the Florentine humanist Niccolò Perotti in 1470 argued that many books in circulation were very inaccurate, and should have never been printed. In 1481, Gerolamo Squarzafico also claimed that many printers were mostly illiterate, where Giorgio Merula also was concerned that printing could have negative effects on classical scholarship. Some critics were also concerned that religious heterodoxy could spread, as biblical texts could be accessed by anyone without proper training.[1]

  • Why it should be changed:

The article should present a balanced view of its subject according to WP:NPOV. The article extensively covers the benefits of the printing press, but only has one sentence that covers criticism. The printing press was controversial when introduced, and notable figures such as humanist scholars, monks, and clergy had concerns about its effects on accuracy and scholarship. These criticisms, overall, represent a significant historical perspective that deserves fuller treatment for neutrality.

  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):
  1. Lee, Alexander (August 1, 2022). "The war against printing". Engelsberg Ideas. Retrieved January 14, 2026.
  2. Trithemius, Johannes; Behrendt, Roland (1974). In praise of scribes: De laude scriptorum. Lawrence, Kansas: Coronado Press. ISBN 0872910660.

~2026-13532-4 (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Lee, Alexander (August 1, 2022). "The war against printing". Engelsberg Ideas. Retrieved January 14, 2026.
  2. ^ Trithemius, Johannes; Behrendt, Roland (1974). In praise of scribes: De laude scriptorum. Lawrence, Kansas: Coronado Press. ISBN 0872910660.
 Not done: Not only is one of your citations incorrectly formatted for it not to appear as a citation, but the unnecessary bolding with bullet points and the hallucination (a Dominican friar before either of the Dominican countries were established/discovered c. 16th century) makes me think you used an LLM to generate this. Again as this seems to be the second time you've done this (the information may be okay) but please review this without using an LLM before I can accept this request. In the meantime, I'll use the template that was used above, because the information contains a hallucination that should be removed. Otherwise, please use your own rationale which you should write by yourself so that I have a real justification to accept this rather than decline. Theeverywhereperson talk here 13:53, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Theeverywhereperson: I decided to check for myself... Filippo de Strata was a Dominican friar (which has nothing to do with the country) 😆. See https://www.google.com/search?q=was+filippo+de+strata+a+%22dominican+friar%22
Anyway, I will look at the other issues you brought up. ~2026-31657-8 (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by this? "Not only is one of your citations incorrectly formatted for it not to appear as a citation". I will re-open this request since it seems that there are no real problems. ~2026-31657-8 (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't give an ISBN for a book citation, so it will not load correctly, even though there is a {{cite book}} template. Theeverywhereperson talk here 17:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. That was very simple to add. Also, I won't edit the top part of this discussion, as you requested. ~2026-31657-8 (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Theeverywhereperson talk here 06:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2026

Thanks for the edit, but there are still some significant issues.

Number 1 For the sentence:

Some critics were also concerned that religious heterodoxy could spread, as biblical texts could be accessed by anyone without proper training.

<ref name="Lee2022"/> was forgotten at the end of the sentence.

Number 2 Also, there should be a space between these two sentences, or maybe even a linebreak. It's up to you to decide what is best.

"On the other hand, the printing press was criticized for allowing the dissemination of information that may have been incorrect.[65][66]Several critics of the printing press around that time period..."

Number 3 Finally, two sentences in a row start with additionally, which I noticed just now. This seems too repetitive. I think the second sentence should start with furthermore

"Additionally, the Benedictine abbot Johannes Trithemius in his 1492 treatise De laude scriptorum manualium argued that printing would make monks intellectually lazy, that books on paper were less durable than parchment manuscripts, and that hand-copying sacred text was a spiritual activity that could not be replicated through technological imitation.[68]

Additionally, the Florentine humanist Niccolò Perotti in 1470 argued that many books in circulation were very inaccurate, and should have never been printed."

Anyway, thanks again for the original edit, here are the more minor fixes though. ~2025-40641-16 (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done GearsDatapack (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The 5th bibliography link, Elizabeth Einstein's the printing press as an agent of change, leads to the archive page for removed content and is therefore no longer accessible. Attempts from multiple IPs and devices make no difference Insomni-know (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The archive.org link for Eisenstein (1980) has been updated; the previous identifier was removed from the Internet Archive. Metalicat (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Structural improvements toward GA

I've been tidying this article with a view to GA nomination. Citation consistency, lead trim, and some copy-editing are done. Three structural questions before going further:

1. "Function and approach" placement. This section (how a press physically works) sits between precursor technologies and Gutenberg's specific innovations, breaking the historical sequence. Would it read better after "Gutenberg's press", or folded into it as a subsection?

2. European vs global spread. "Mass production and spread of printed books" covers both the rapid fifteenth-century spread within Europe and the later colonial/missionary spread (Goa, Nagasaki, Ottoman Empire). These are different processes on different timelines. Worth splitting into two subsections? The global material could also be trimmed with a {{main}} link to Global spread of the printing press.

3. Post-industrial scope. Coverage stops at Hoe's 1843 rotary press. The title is simply "Printing press", so readers may expect at least a brief summary of later developments (offset, phototypesetting, digital). A short paragraph with {{main}} links to the relevant articles would fill the gap without bloating the article.

Views welcome. Metalicat (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

passedA.Cython(talk) 01:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Printing press/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Metalicat (talk · contribs) 20:12, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: A.Cython (talk · contribs) 01:11, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this one as part of GARC#82. A.Cython(talk) 01:11, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article on the printing press. While the article is full of interesting information, found hard to be engaged and there are several major issues that need to be addressed before even talking about GA review. I do appreciate the effort of the nominator in attempting to bring this important and highly visible article to GA, but I am afraid it requires improvements that might require time and resources beyond the GA review timeline. I list my concerns below (in no particular order as I do not have the time to organize my thoughts).A.Cython(talk) 00:30, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Copyright issues. A section of the article has high correlation. I do not know who copied who, but evidence need to be presented that the original text is from WP. Otherwise the particular section needs to be rewritten.
  1. The text should be cleaned up from various tangents. Please try to clean throughout the article.
    • it was commonly employed in agricultural production for pressing grapes for wine and olives for oil, both of which formed an integral part of the Mediterranean and medieval diet. I fail to see the relevancy of "Mediterranean and medieval diet"
  2. Unsupported statements. There a few instances where the paragraph ends without a citation.
  3. The lead is relatively large with 463 words, some trimming is needed per MOS:LEADLENGTH
    • Additionally, the citations in the lead are not needed, unless it is a contentious topic, which does not appear so per MOS:CITELEAD
  4. "See also" section is also quite long. Please note that only relevant entries that have not appeared anywhere else in the article should be in "See also". So for example, "Lithography" should not be there since it is mentioned at the sidebox on publishing. Also "Desktop publishing" is mentioned in the main body.
  5. Reading flow and structure. There is not as much theme cohesion between paragraphs and there are several single sentence paragraphs. Elimination of the latter and significant improvement on the former are needed.
  6. Missing thematic transition. I fail to see as a reader the significance of the printing press. It is not well explained how the world was before and what happened afterwards. For example, The press was also a factor in the establishment of a community of scientists who could communicate discoveries through widely disseminated scholarly journals, contributing to the Scientific Revolution. This is rather confusing, as it implies that there was no community of scientists beforehand, why would there be a need of journals in the first place. Scientists communicated beforehand via letters, was it not enough? Printing press must have been something more than just exchanging papers.
  7. Reading for the review, it became clear the Gutenberg was lucky for the influx of Byzantines (due to the fall of Constantinople), who were bringing with them a wide range of classics. See JSTOR article: The Invention of Printing: Revolution within Revolution
    • The spread of printing also raised issues of censorship and freedom of the press. This is also not well explained. See here for brief and possible expansion.
    • Of Erasmus's work, at least 750,000 copies were sold during his lifetime alone (1469–1536). this requires some context or it is useless information.
  8. Bailyn & Hench 1981 produces a Harv Id error, since it has no proper target
  9. Multiple sources are not cited, move them to "Further reading" section
  10. Add language option to source information template
  11. "Technological factors" section is too detailed/large with respect to the other sections of the article. The article is about the printing press, not just the Gutenberg printing press. So some re-balancing is needed, as I felt the modern age (era of newspapers etc) is awfully neglected.
    • Is the paragraph During the Islamic Golden Age, Arab Muslims adopted the Chinese craft of papermaking relevant to the Printing press? It does not appear so.
  12. My understanding is that the Reformation played a much bigger role in shaping printing press (whether for printing religious texts and against by burning books). This aspect of the narrative is not clear enough in the text.
  13. Printing press (at least to my mind) is more closely related to newspapers. After the industrial revolution, newspapers changed the way people saw the world, e.g., see here
  14. Febvre and Martin who are they? please clarify in the text.
  15. add wikilink to lead
  16. led to a huge increase avoid subjective characterizations, let the numbers speak for themselves.
@A.Cython: Apologies for taking a while to reply, I only noticed today that you had posted the review. Thank you for the thorough review, this is my first attempt at improving an established article (25 years old!) and I appreciate the detailed feedback. I have made the following changes:
  1. Copyright: the 75% match flagged by the Earwig tool is with virtualchange.wordpress.com, a WordPress blog dated January 2012. The flagged text (primarily the "Mass production and spread" section) is present in the Wikipedia article's revision from December 2011 (and earlier), predating the blog. The blog has copied from Wikipedia, not the other way round. The 2011 revision.
  2. Tangents: Removed "both of which formed an integral part of the Mediterranean and medieval diet" from the screw press passage. Also removed the Islamic Golden Age paragraph, which concerned papermaking rather than the press itself.
  3. Unsupported statements: Will continue to audit; please flag specific paragraphs if any remain.
  4. Lead length: Trimmed from 463 to approximately 394 words. Removed inline citations per MOS:CITELEAD.
  5. See also: Removed items already linked in the article body or sidebar (Printing, Typography, Lithography, Offset printing, Desktop publishing, Electronic publishing, Printer).
  6. Reading flow: Will continue to review; the scientists/journals sentence has been reworded and the Erasmus figure now has framing context.
  7. Scientists/journals: Reworded to clarify that scholars had previously communicated by manuscript letter, and that printed journals enabled wider and faster dissemination.
  8. Censorship: Expanded with the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (1559) and secular licensing systems, cited to Eisenstein.
  9. Erasmus context: Added framing sentence: "The commercial possibilities of the new technology were demonstrated by individual sales figures."
  10. Bailyn & Hench Harv ID error: Fixed by removing the mismatched |ref= parameter.
  11. Uncited sources: Removed the uncited Schlesinger entry. Will audit for others.
  12. Language parameters: Added |language= to all non-English bibliography entries.
  13. Febvre and Martin: Identified on first mention as "The historians Lucien Febvre and Henri-Jean Martin".
  14. "Led to a huge increase": Changed to "led to a rapid increase".
Still to address: balance between Gutenberg-era and modern content, Reformation expansion, newspaper era, Byzantine scholars suggestion. These are larger structural changes. Would you be content to place the review on hold while I work through them? id aim to sort these in the next week a couple of days or so. Metalicat (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Further progress on the remaining points:
  1. Unsupported statements: Audited the full article and fixed three paragraph endings that lacked citations (Technological factors, Function and approach, and The printing revolution intro). Every paragraph now ends with a citation.
  2. Uncited sources: Audited the full bibliography. Moved ten entries that were not cited anywhere in the article text to a new "Further reading" section (Berthold, Bechtel, Boruchoff, Crompton, Eisenstein 2005 abridged edition, Fontaine, Gerhardt ×2, Hind, McLuhan). The Bibliography now contains only sources actually cited in the article.
  3. Single-sentence paragraphs: Merged three single-sentence paragraphs into adjacent paragraphs (Latin alphabet sentence into the movable type paragraph, production output figures into the European presses comparison, and the Dittmar economic growth sentence into the vernacular languages paragraph).
The structural points (balance, Reformation, newspapers, Byzantine scholars) are next. Metalicat (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Byzantine scholars: Added a sentence on Aldus Manutius publishing the greater part of Greek literature between 1495 and 1515 with the help of Greek scholars who arrived in Italy after the fall of the Byzantine Empire, sourced to Barker (1978), the JSTOR article you suggested.
  2. Reformation: Expanded with material from Pettegree, Brand Luther (2015). Luther is now identified as Europe's most published author in 1518–1519, with his 45 works reaching 291 editions (p. 104). Added detail on the short pamphlet format (p. 80). The passage now covers the scale of Luther's output, the pamphlet format, the Catholic Church's response (Index, licensing), and subsequent use of printed literature in later political conflicts.
  3. Newspapers: Expanded from one sentence to a paragraph, also sourced to Pettegree (pp. 336–337). The article now explains how printers who had built a readership through Reformation pamphlets sustained it with news sheets, and how this led to the first weekly newspapers in seventeenth-century Germany.
The only remaining point is the overall balance between Gutenberg-era and modern content, which I will continue to work on. Metalicat (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Cython: I believe I have now addressed all of your points.
Balance: The Gutenberg-era Technological factors section has been trimmed (two tangential passages removed), while the Reformation and newspaper coverage has been substantially expanded with new sourced material. I am satisfied the balance has improved but am open to further suggestions on specific passages you feel should be trimmed or expanded.
Please let me know if you are happy to proceed with the review or if any points need further work. Metalicat (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will read it again at some point in the following days. I do appreciate your dedication and effort to improve the article. A.Cython(talk) 22:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my late response, but I needed the temporal distance to re-read the article with a clear mind. I know you have placed considerable effort, but this is not one of the easy articles. The fact that over 25 years, it has not reached to GA status is perhaps a testament of the challenges. I will provide the following observations:

  • Section "History": contains information upto but before the Gutenberg? The printing revolution is also not included in the history?
  • Subsection "Technological factors" Difficult to read and follow as each paragraph talks about different technologies without a cohesive narrative
    • For example, it says A fourth development and I was like wait how many did I just read, because it was more than four this point or at least this is the impression the text gives.
  • I still do not quite get a good sense of what was the impact of the printing press.
    • https://www.jstor.org/stable/43554930
    • From Eisenstein Princes who had employed the cumbersome methods of manuscript to communicate with their subjects switched quickly to print to announce declarations of war, publish battle accounts, promulgate treaties or argue disputed points in pamphlet form. Theirs was an effort ... ' to win the psychological war which prepared and accompanied the military operations' of rulers. The root idea was to evoke the notion of the patrie as the realm of France and to represent the king as the personification of this patrie. In similar fashion the English crown under Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell made systematic use of both Parliament and press to win public support for the Reformation.
    • From Eisenstein A most important consequence of the printing press, however, was that it did create a new kind of public for idées' forces.318 The reading public was not necessarily vocal, nor did its members necessarily frequent cafe's, clubs, or salons of known political complexion. It was instead composed of silent and solitary individuals who were often unknown to each other and who were linked only by access to bookshops, lending libraries, or chambres de lecture and, here and there, also by membership in 'corresponding societies'.
    • From Eisenstein Certainly, unfortunate consequences have ensued when flesh-and-blood human beings are viewed as statistical averages or become stereotyped role-players. But many readers were also made more conscious of the limitations of book learning after the fifteenth century. Readers in the sixteenth century learned from Paracelsus and his followers, for example, that 'the sick should be the doctor's books.'

The quotes above reflect part of the struggle of who controls the forces unleashed by the printing press. The kings, popes, priests against pope (affecting biblical faith), intellectuals, all were fighting to control. The acceleration of societal changes caused by printing press also resulted in European wars, see here. Eisenstein's book provide several examples. It is fair to say that even led to the fall of Divine right of kings to rule, which is a rather important consequence not to be mentioned. Unfortunately, the current "Circulation of information and ideas" section does not cover sufficiently enough or properly reflect the magnitude of the consequences.A.Cython(talk) 02:32, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Cython: Thank you for taking the time to re-read carefully, it's very much appreciated. The two structural points and the impact concern were all fair, and I have spent the evening working through them.
  • History section structure: I have unified the chronological narrative under History, with Gutenberg's press, Function and approach and Printing revolution now as subsections rather than separate top-level headings. The Industrial printing presses section remains at top level for the moment, but I can move it inside History too if you would prefer the whole chronology under one heading.
  • Technological factors cohesion: The opening of the section now lists the four pre-existing technologies that Gutenberg combined (screw press, movable type, codex, mechanized paper) and each of the four subsequent paragraphs is signposted (The first of these..., The second element..., etc.). The A fourth development phrasing has gone.
  • Impact / circulation of ideas: The Circulation of information and ideas subsection has been substantially expanded. The reading-public paragraph now covers Eisenstein's argument that the new audience was dispersed, atomistic and individualistic, linked impersonally through bookshops, coffeehouses, reading rooms and subscription lists rather than through physical assembly, with the corollary that classical models of citizenship suited it less well than they had earlier audiences. A new paragraph on state propaganda covers Cromwell's campaign in support of Henry VIII's break with Rome (which Eisenstein, citing Geoffrey Elton, describes as the first by any European government to exploit the propaganda potential of the press) and the parallel French use of print to promote the patrie and the king as its personification, with the "psychological war" framing you quoted. The censorship paragraph has been expanded to include the Mainz licensing edict of 1485, the Leo X decree of 1515, and the Counter-Reformation Indexes of 1559 and 1564, rather than just the 1559 Index in isolation.
Six further items I want to work through in the coming days rather than tonight: (1) the balance between the Scientific Revolution treatment and Eisenstein's much fuller account; (2) whether the Reformation impact, currently split between Mass production and spread and Circulation of information and ideas, should be consolidated; (3) the broader debate around the quantitative claims by Dittmar and Rubin; (4) the divine right of kings question, which I want to take to the literature properly — I am sympathetic to the connection but wary of synthesising it from Eisenstein's more localised observations without a specific named historian making the argument directly; (5) Paracelsus and the limits of book learning, which I will also re-examine in light of the wider literature; and (6) any further tightening that falls out of those searches. I will post again once these are done.
Metalicat (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Cython: Picking up the remaining items.
Scientific Revolution has gone from a single sentence to two paragraphs covering Eisenstein on the Almagest/De revolutionibus contrast, the features of modern scientific practice (serial publication, data preservation, public disclosure, reader feedback) that took shape in the incunabula era, and repeatable images with Vesalius as the named example.
Divine right of kings: added a paragraph citing Anderson's Imagined Communities (pp. 36, 39–46) on print-capitalism, the displacement of sacred languages and the erosion of divinely-ordained kingship. Anderson seemed the cleanest way to bring the point in without overreaching from Eisenstein.
Paracelsus is now in the contemporary critics paragraph, with Eisenstein's qualification that he was himself a creature of print culture and that the Galenic slogan he and his followers repeated made more sense in scribal culture than in print culture (Vol. I, pp. 474, 484–486).
Dittmar and Rubin: the original one-sentence paragraph has been expanded, with the instrument Dittmar uses (distance from Mainz) added. A second paragraph follows the literature into the wider quantitative debate: the BPR 2016 survey distinguishing supply- and demand-side accounts; Cantoni 2012 on strategic neighbour-effects as the mechanism behind the apparent distance-from-Wittenberg result; and BHPR 2020 in American Sociological Review on Luther's personal network ties (correspondence, recorded visits, Wittenberg student enrolments) as a complementary diffusion channel.
Reformation split: considered consolidating but have left it standing. Mass production covers the scale of bulk printing (291 editions, 300,000 tracts, sevenfold rise in German output), while Circulation covers the political and intellectual consequences. These are doing different work, and I've made the production-side framing of the Mass production paragraph slightly more explicit so the reader is primed for the consequences to be picked up later.
Metalicat (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding the new material. I made some reorganization to improve the thematic cohesion. I will try to conclude the review over the weekend. A.Cython(talk) 03:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think we are getting there. I would ask you to tidy up a bit the "Impact" section. While I am inclusion-ist, I feel it is a bit wordy and the same information can be said with less. For example, "Eisenstein also stresses the role of repeatable images." does not add any value. Opinions of scholars if not contested can be presented as facts. Otherwise, you replace the particular sentence with "According to Eisenstein, ... ". Once you tide up this section, I will conclude the review. Also feel free to improve the subsection titles as well. Thank you for your hard work. A.Cython(talk) 00:44, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Also thanks for your time, excellent suggestions and review points. I’m away for a few days now, but will action this on my return and ping you. Metalicat (talk) 05:54, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Cython: Done. Trimmed the Impact section throughout: removed framing sentences like "Eisenstein also stresses..." and converted "According to Eisenstein..." constructions into direct statements where her claims are uncontested. Also renamed two subsections ("Science" → "Scientific practice"; "Negative views" → "Contemporary criticism"). Happy to trim further if any passages still feel wordy. Metalicat (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so this is the GA review in earnest (since we have reached a workable version). My comments are below.A.Cython(talk) 21:21, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Various

  • No edit war
  • Neutral
  • No copyright issues, Earwig's Copyvio Detector gave at most 25% flagging the first sentence at the lead (I had to rewrite it).
  • Figures have appropriate licences, figure captions, and they are relevant to the subject

Prose & MoS

  • I made a few copyedits
  • I moved the "Further reading" below the references, as it is the typical/expected location as far as I know
  • Also replaced the pseudo headings per MOS:PSEUDOHEAD

Sources

  • I also replaced the isbn number of McLuhan's book with its oclc number, as for some reason it was producing Harv id errors
  • Spot check, there has been discussion with various sources outlined above. I did not spot any issues.
@A.Cython: Thank you, and thank you for the copyedits and for moving the Further reading section and fixing the McLuhan Harv error.
On the Koenig steam-press image: I traced it to its reproduction in Meggs but could not verify the original date or authorship to a standard I was comfortable with, and the book I found isn't accessible to confirm it. Rather than leave a file with unresolved licensing, I've removed it from the article. Metalicat (talk) 08:19, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

Not an easy article and I am sure that readers may have thoughts. For me as a casual reviewer and after the work of Metalicat, I think the article has reached GA status. Of course, GA is not the end but for now congratulations are in order. Well done! A.Cython(talk) 01:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

(
)
A recreated Gutenberg press at the International Printing Museum in Carson, California
A recreated Gutenberg press at the International Printing Museum in Carson, California
  • ... that around 1473 a Dominican friar denounced the printing press (pictured) as a "whore" set against the "virgin" pen?
Improved to Good Article status by Metalicat (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Metalicat (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2026 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hiya! This article, reviewed on 30 may(is new enough) passed earwigs, obviously long enough, assuming its well sourced because it passed GA. No QPQ required. The 1st hook is very fun and interesting, but I would be nice if there was more context as to why the friar made this comparison. I will be posting my alternative hook for the 1st after my meds wear off(they make it harder to think). 🥤Spravato!🍒/🧋 01:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How about
... that around 1473 a Dominican friar denounced the printing press (pictured) as a "whore" set against the "virgin" pen for valuing profit over scholarship?

Or

... that around 1473 the Dominican friar Filippo de Strata, who accused printers of putting profit before accuracy, called the printing press (pictured) a "whore" against the "virgin" pen?
Thanks, Spravato, that's a fair point, and no rush at all, please take whatever time you need. The first hook does give the image without the reason behind it, so I've added a couple of ALTs above that work the "why" in. Both facts, the metaphor and the complaint that printers put profit before accuracy and scholarship, are cited inline to Lee 2022 in the "Contemporary criticism" section. Equally happy to go with whatever hook you post when you're ready. Metalicat (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am approving of the hook “ that around 1473 a Dominican friar denounced the printing press (pictured) as a "whore" set against the "virgin" pen for valuing profit over scholarship?”. However I am new to DYK reviews and would like a 2nd opinion from someone more experienced

Peer review

Printing press

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


This article passed GA on 30 May 2026 after a good deal of work, and I'm bringing it here with Featured Article candidacy in mind further down the line. I'd welcome a thorough read before I take it any further.

For context: Printing press is a level-4 vital article and one of the better-read articles in its area, averaging around 1,200 views a day, so it's worth getting right. It's also a long-standing article, around twenty-five years old, which brings the usual mixed inheritance: a broad existing structure alongside a lot of accumulated text of uneven quality and sourcing. Most of the recent work went into citation cleanup, prose and restructuring to reach GA, and the GA review (my thanks to A.Cython) tightened it further.

I'm under no illusion that it's FA-ready as it stands. I expect it needs a fair bit more work, and I'd rather find the gaps here than at FAC. Areas I'd particularly value views on:

  • Comprehensiveness and balance: whether the weight given to each period and region suits the topic's scope, and whether anything significant is thin or missing.
  • Prose against the FA criterion 1a: I've worked on it, but a fresh eye on clarity and flow would help.
  • Citations: consistency of formatting, and whether the sourcing is high-quality and sufficient throughout.
  • Images: licensing and provenance, which I want clean before any FAC.

Any other observations are very welcome. Thank you for taking the time. Metalicat (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

This is one of those articles with such a large scope, it's hard to know where to begin and what to include. By necessity, this needs to be just a high-level overview. I see that the basic structure is already in place for that, with lots of {{main article}} and {{see also}} links, so that's a good start.

One big issue I see is with the lead. Per MOS:LEAD it should be "a summary of [the article's] most important contents", which implies that everything in the lead should draw from the main text, and that doesn't seem to be the case. I don't see anything in the main text which talks about ink being "brushed". There's no mention about Gutenberg inventing the press in 1440. Conversely, the main text should be able to stand on its own. The first sentence is "The economic and cultural changes of late medieval Europe helped to create conditions in which Gutenberg's printing press could succeed commercially." At this point, the reader has not yet been introduced to Gutenberg at all in the body of the article.

I understand how this evolved, because I see it in my own writing. When I start a new article, the first thing I write often evolves into the lead. That's fine to get going, but once you get to FA land (to be honest, @A.Cython: this really should have been picked up at WP:GAN), you need to hew more closely to the MOS. My suggestion is to fix this in two passes. First, go through the lead sentence by sentence making sure every fact is in the body, adding it if it's not. Then throw away the entire lead and write a new one from scratch, making sure it is indeed a a summary of the most important contents. One good strategy for that is to take each section (h2, h3, etc) in turn and write one or two sentences that encapsulate the key point(s) of the section. That's not a hard and fast rule, but it's a reasonable way to get a decent first draft for the lead. RoySmith (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @RoySmith: As you said at the top, with a scope this size it is hard to know where to begin, which is as true for a reviewer as for the person writing it, so I am grateful you took it on. The more fresh eyes the merrier. After so much work on the body, I forgot to revisit the lead.
I have now reworked it. The lead has been rewritten so that each paragraph summarises a part of the body rather than standing apart from it, and I have brought the few details that did not match into line (the figure for the number of cities, and the description of earlier hand methods, which now matches the body). The History section was opening as though Gutenberg had already been introduced, so I have added a short sentence there that introduces him and gives the invention date, around 1440, a sourced home it previously lacked.
I would welcome another look when you have a moment, and any thoughts on the rest of the article. Thanks again for the time. Metalicat (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can't promise when, but I'll come back and take another look when I have time. RoySmith (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, I'm hung up on the structure of the beginning of "History". You start out with The goldsmith Johannes Gutenberg developed the movable-type printing press, which immediately leads me to wonder what does printing have to do with goldsmithing? Perhaps start with your first sentence (minus the leading "The goldsmith") and then follow-up with something like "A goldsmith by training, Gutenberg became interested in printing because ..." I'd also get rid of the small "Economic conditions and intellectual climate" section, and just run that text into the previous sentences. I know previously I had said I liked the "See also" structure, but what you've got here (See also: History of capitalism and Medieval university, See also: History of Western typography and Medieval technology) seems excessive and just break up the flow. Are those particular links really critical to understanding the printing press?
  • Immediately after "combining several technologies that had each matured by the mid-fifteenth century", I'd list what they were, i.e. the screw press, movable type, the codex book format, and mechanized paper production. Right now, you don't provide that list until a couple of paragraphs later, leaving the reader wondering what the technologies were.
  • The oldest printed book using metal movable type was the Jikji Be careful with absolute statements like "oldest". These usually deserve to be qualified with something like "oldest known" or "believed to be".
  • Tsuen-Hsuin and Needham, and Briggs and Burke suggest who are these people?
  • In "Function and approach", your use of "known as" and/or "called" gets repetitive. This could use some rephrasing.
  • The bed was then wound out what does "wound out" mean?
  • By 1800, Lord Stanhope had built a press completely from cast iron, which reduced the force required by 90% How does changing to iron reduce the force required?
  • As a general note, coverage under History is heavily slanted towards the early days. 1200 words about Gutenberg. Another 1200 words only brings us up to the 17th century. The next 700 words gets us to the year 1940. and finally, 100 words gets us to the present. The Impact section is similarly skewed: everything which is tied to a specific year or era is 16th century or earlier. I don't think this is necessarily a problem, but the title "Printing press" promises coverage of a broader subject.
  • This is also extremely Euro-centric. There is a bit of discussion of US advances (full disclosure: I did some work on Richard M. Hoe) but Asia gets barely a passing mention.

OK, I think that's it for me. Overall, I think the prose itself is in pretty good shape. I'm not just talking about the technical details like spelling and grammar, but more generally it flows well, is interesting to read, and tells a good story. You definitely want to get some input from subject matter experts. Normally I would suggest finding other FAs in similar topics and approaching their authors, but looking at WP:FA#Engineering and technology I don't see any closely related articles. RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Thank you, this is all really useful. The suggestions are excellent.
The prose and structure changes are done. The History section now opens by introducing Gutenberg and listing the four technologies straight away, the small "Economic conditions and intellectual climate" heading has gone and the text runs on as you suggested, and the two "See also" hatnotes that were breaking up the flow are removed. I have qualified the Jikji as the oldest surviving book of its kind, named the authors behind the China and Korea point (Tsien Tsuen-Hsuin and Needham, Briggs and Burke), reworked the repeated "known as / called" in "Function and approach", and made clear what "wound out" means. The lead has had another pass at the same time.
The larger items I will chip away at over the next week or so:
  • on the Stanhope point. The force saving came from the compound lever system rather than the iron itself, with the iron allowing a larger platen, so I will check the sources and reword it rather than leave it implying the metal did the work.
  • The labelled diagram is a good idea; I will ask at the Graphics Lab soon.
  • On the weighting towards the early period, I take the point. The article is scoped to the Gutenberg device, with the modern technology covered at Printing, but there is still a gap around machine composition (Linotype and Monotype) that I will fill, and I will look again at the overall balance.
  • The East Asian coverage is thin on development as opposed to diffusion, and I will add a little there.
  • Finding a subject-matter reviewer is sound advice, and I will follow it, since you are right that there is no obvious neighbouring FA to draw one from.
Thanks again for taking this on. Metalicat (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On a procedural note, WP:FAC says "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it." I don't think you'll have any problem qualifying as a significant contributor, but according to xtools, you're just one of several major authors, so you should at least ping them here to enlist their input. RoySmith (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: yes fair point.
Hello @Graham87:, @Parhamr: and @Gun Powder Ma:. I am in the process of improving Printing press, with the aspiration of taking it to FAC. As significant contributors to this article, do you have any thoughts, comments or suggestions? Metalicat (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith and Metalicat: Thanks but I don't want to get involved in this. I only kept a proverbial eye on the article a while ago because of a vague interest in the history of the technology. Per the authorship statistics in the xtools link listed above, the only one who's added a lot of text that has survived in the current version is Gun Powder Ma, whose last edit to the article was in 2020 and last edit overall was in 2024. Graham87 (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.