Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:25, 11 June 2022

Alexander S. Wolcott is currently a Computing and engineering good article nominee. Nominated by Doug Coldwell (talk) at 22:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC) An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.

Alexander S. Wolcott was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 17, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Biography NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Connecticut NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

A fact from Alexander S. Wolcott appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 September 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that Alexander S. Wolcott and John Johnson opened the first commercial photography portrait studio in the world? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2017/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alexander S. Wolcott (inventor).

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Willbb234 (talk · contribs) 16:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll review this article. Kind regards, Willbb234 (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Nationality in the first sentence is needed.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• The lede is too short and needs fleshing out. One or two more sentences on the camera are needed.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• "(Paull)" to "(née Paull)"

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• The Early Life section is so small I'm questioning it's necessity in the article. You should probably merge it with the rest of the article and re title it "Career" or

"Life" or "Biography". Willbb234 (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Willbb234: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• "In 1839 he became an associated with John Johnson," not quite sure what you are saying here so needs correcting.

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• "and related supplies" try and be more specific here.

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Wolcott lived in New York City in the 1830s and made dental supplies for a living. He worked in the mechanics of designing instruments that used optics. don't these two sentences contradict each other, or did he do both things at the same time? If so, it needs clarification.

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• You need to introduce Daguerre and also include a wikilink. A little background on his work would also be useful.

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Wolcott and Johnson continued to improve their photography techniques. Wolcott improved his photosensitive plate and created a chemical "accelerator", a mix of bromide and chloride. these two sentences don't read too well as you say improve twice.

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

General comments. There isn't very much on Wolcott in this article. There's plenty on his work and a few details of his early life and death, but nothing on his personal life, education or anything like that. As this is an article on him and not just his work, it is a bit undesirable. Due to the era when he lived, I wouldn't imagine there's more photos of Wolcott himself, but if there are, please add them in as it would really help the article; there's more images of the camera he built rather than he himself. Finally the references look good and I have no issues there. I am going to request a second opinion on this one as I don't think the article is very broad in its coverage and I'd just like someone else to give their opinion. Kind regards, Willbb234 (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Willbb234: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with Willbb234. There are only two paragraphs of biographical information here, padded out with excessive detail about when he took photographs of whom and how his cameras worked (WP:GACR #3b). If one discounts that material, it looks like start-class to me, not GA. There is not even enough material here to make more than one section heading. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• • Comment - This sentence, Wolcott married Mary Sanborn (born 1810 – unknown) and they had one child (born 1834 – unknown) is sourced to Ancestry.com. Per consensus, Ancestry.com has been determined to be an unreliable source (see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources). A new source needs to be provided or the information should be removed. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll close this GA review as a fail per the comments above. Kind regards, Willbb234 (please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alexander S. Wolcott/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SirGallantThe4th (talk · contribs) 20:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hello, and thank you for your GA nomination. I will be reviewing this article using the template below.SirGallantThe4th (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for review. I'll get started on the issues.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
• @SirGallantThe4th: All issues have been addressed. A thorough copy-edit has been done to the article. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• I still spot a number of grammatical errors throughout the submission, and I am hesitant to pass it until they are fixed. I can do another copyedit of the article tomorrow, after which it will be ready to pass. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I have gone through the article and have made edits to fix grammar and punctuation errors, re-worded overly simplistic sentences, added wikilinks wherever necessary, and removed redundancies or irrelevant information. In particular, a large portion of the "personal life and legacy" section was excised, as much of the information there was either redundant or bore little relevance to the subject.

Please thoroughly check the revised article to ensure that no crucial information was lost during this copyedit process. Once I get a confirmation, I will go ahead and pass the article. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@SirGallantThe4th: I have looked over your edits. Yes, they are good as far as I am concerned. Thanks for the improvements.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There are a number of glaring grammar/punctuation mistakes. For instance, "At the time of celebration the MacMillan company of New York published a book titled Photography and American Scene — Social History 1839-1889" needs a full stop and commas to denote appositive phrases. Same goes for sentences like "Wolcott with Johnson continued to improve their photography techniques.", "Dr. Taft gives the honor of the first successful portrait of a person to Wolcott who took a daguerreotype of his partner John Johnson on October 7 1839.", etc. There are a several run-on sentences here and there as well, such as "The date marks the first time a newspaper advertisement (Sun Drawn Miniatures) was published for a camera taking of a professional picture and it cost $3 ($81.00 in 2021)." and "By June, Wolcott had opened a branch in Washington D.C. which was operated by John G. Stevenson." The whole article needs a lot more commas. The current subject of the discussion seems to change rather abruptly, which is especially noticeable in the middle of a paragraph. For instance, the Daguerreian Parlor is brought up immediately after discussion of where Wolcott resided -- this transition felt very abrupt. I was so confused when I first read this that I went back up the article to see if I had missed its introduction. I only understood what the Parlor was after I read the sentence following it, but that explanation should be combined with the preceding sentence introducing it. A few paragraphs sound a little stilted or too simplistic. Many related sentences can be combined into one, for example: "They established a business relationship with their trade skills and organized the firm 'Wolcott and Johnson' at 52 First Street in New York City. The small business manufactured optical instruments and dental equipment." and "Wolcott made a photosensitive plate that used a chemical enhancer to develop the image. It was a solution of bromide and chloride and known in London as the Wolcott's mixture." It sort of reads like an article written for the Simple English Misplaced Pages, but the focus jumps back and forth constantly in the middle of paragraphs, which may confuse readers. The above comments have been resolved. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Looks fine.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References look good.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Citations look good.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Looks fine.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The main topic is addressed.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	There were a few times during my initial read-through where I believed some sentences were wholly unnecessary, but I suspect this may just be because of the way this article is currently written. (See comments in 1a)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article reads neutrally.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The last edit was made two months ago, so it looks fine.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are tagged correctly.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images included are relevant and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold. The article in its current state could potentially confuse readers with the manner its content is presented. I believe the article should be suitable for good article status if one gives it a thorough copyedit and fixes all the problems with readability. The above comments have been resolved. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees currently on hold
• Good article nominees on review
• Former good article nominees
• NA-Class biography pages
• NA-Class Connecticut pages
• NA-importance Connecticut pages
• WikiProject Connecticut articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles