Misplaced Pages

Talk:John Johnson (inventor)/GA1: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Talk:John Johnson (inventor) Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:36, 12 October 2020 editDoug Coldwell (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers70,556 edits →GA Review: All issues have been addressed.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:35, 12 October 2020 edit undoForbes72 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,602 edits →GA Review: still think it's not close to passing, sorry 
Line 61: Line 61:
* Mention of "dental supplies" in lead that never comes up in the text. Did he ever work for a dentist, or was he a general supplier? What did he make? * Mention of "dental supplies" in lead that never comes up in the text. Did he ever work for a dentist, or was he a general supplier? What did he make?
:{{Done}} :{{Done}}
::{{Not fixed}} The expansion is a start, but GA quality articles include significantly more detail overall. The above are examples of ideas to expand on, but the main point is that the content needs to be more comprehensive, not just fixing the specific gaps in coverage I was able to point out. &#12296;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#12297; 21:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

}} }}
<!-- Focus. It stays ] without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). --> <!-- Focus. It stays ] without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). -->
Line 70: Line 70:
{{GATable/item|4|no|Seems to cover only one side of a disagreement about the discussion of priority of the first portrait. Maybe he actually was the first, but article should reflect the reliable sources, which discuss that the determination of who exactly was first is disputed. {{GATable/item|4|no|Seems to cover only one side of a disagreement about the discussion of priority of the first portrait. Maybe he actually was the first, but article should reflect the reliable sources, which discuss that the determination of who exactly was first is disputed.
:{{Done}} :{{Done}}
::{{Not fixed}} You haven't added any mention of the dispute. &#12296;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#12297; 21:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
}} }}
<!-- Stable. Add comments to the end of the line below (after |). --> <!-- Stable. Add comments to the end of the line below (after |). -->
Line 80: Line 81:
{{GATable/item|6a|no|Both ] and ] are missing specific public domain tags to clarify why they are in the public domain. {{GATable/item|6a|no|Both ] and ] are missing specific public domain tags to clarify why they are in the public domain.
:{{Done}} :{{Done}}
::{{Not fixed}} Still showing errors "Public domain works must be out of copyright in both the United States and in the source country of the work in order to be hosted on the Commons. If the work is not a U.S. work, the file must have an additional copyright tag indicating the copyright status in the source country. " &#12296;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#12297; 21:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
}} }}
<!-- Images are ] to the topic, and have ]. --> <!-- Images are ] to the topic, and have ]. -->
Line 88: Line 90:
{{GATable/item|7|no|Overall, what's here is well-sourced and decently presented, if a little short. I'm going to have to fail mostly for criteria 3a. Compare, for example, ] or ] which are much more comprehensive. Most of the sources are already here, but the text needs significant expansion to meet GA criteria. {{GATable/item|7|no|Overall, what's here is well-sourced and decently presented, if a little short. I'm going to have to fail mostly for criteria 3a. Compare, for example, ] or ] which are much more comprehensive. Most of the sources are already here, but the text needs significant expansion to meet GA criteria.
:{{ping|Forbes72}} All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks. --] (]) 20:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC) :{{ping|Forbes72}} All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks. --] (]) 20:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|Doug Coldwell}} Sure. The improvements are good, but most of the issues I mentioned are still there. I don't think this article is that close to GA, which is why I didn't put the review on hold. Maybe you disagree, but I would suggest relisting on ] when the article has maybe 50% more content. &#12296;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#12297; 21:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
}} }}
|} |}

Latest revision as of 21:35, 12 October 2020

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Forbes72 (talk · contribs) 04:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


Plenty of backlog here to go through, I'll look this one over. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 04:26, 11 October 2020 (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. Some places need minor copy-editing. (e.g. in infobox "was first portrait picture taken" -> "subject of the first portrait picture", maybe "instrument maker" -> "dental instrument maker" so its not confused with music?) Probably a few more, but this could probably be fixed quickly.
 Done
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. In the lead, "pioneer" is MOS:WTW, can we be more specific? Needs more wikilinks. For example, the article probably could probably use links to Portrait photography and Curved mirror#Concave mirrors. Section layout should be reworked as content expands, maybe by location? Having a section called "photography" is too broad since the whole article is about his work in photography.
 Done
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. I would comb over the formatting in greater detail if it was close to passing, but in general they look OK.
 Done
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). A very nice list of reliable sources for the statements made in the article.
 Done
2c. it contains no original research. Information taken from the sources.
 Done
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Prose is original as far as I can tell.
 Done
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Some things to be expanded:
  • How are was the initial chemical process different from the silver chloride process? Apparently there was some improvement, but a summary of the comparison between the two is warranted, I think. Maybe compare with the later gelatin silver process?
 Done
  • No mention of John William Draper. NY times says "John W. Draper, a physicist and astronomer of New York University, in 1839 made the first photographic portrait in a modern sense." they were both members of the American Photographical Society, which is also not mentioned. (apparently John Johnson was the treasurer?) Should be discussed here.
 Done
  • More life events: return to the US, movement to Maine, and joining the "York institute" which should be explained.
 Done
  • If Wolcott was the main inventor/patent holder, what exactly was Johnson's role? A technician? Grinding the mirrors/physical assembly? Helping with the conceptual design? "made with Wolcott" is not exactly specific.
 Done
  • Mention of "dental supplies" in lead that never comes up in the text. Did he ever work for a dentist, or was he a general supplier? What did he make?
 Done
Red X Not fixed The expansion is a start, but GA quality articles include significantly more detail overall. The above are examples of ideas to expand on, but the main point is that the content needs to be more comprehensive, not just fixing the specific gaps in coverage I was able to point out. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 21:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Seems reasonably focused.
 Done
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Seems to cover only one side of a disagreement about the discussion of priority of the first portrait. Maybe he actually was the first, but article should reflect the reliable sources, which discuss that the determination of who exactly was first is disputed.
 Done
Red X Not fixed You haven't added any mention of the dispute. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 21:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No edits in the last couple months, even.
 Done
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. Both File:Wolcott camera light path.jpg and File:W S Johnson portrait pose.jpg are missing specific public domain tags to clarify why they are in the public domain.
 Done
Red X Not fixed Still showing errors "Public domain works must be out of copyright in both the United States and in the source country of the work in order to be hosted on the Commons. If the work is not a U.S. work, the file must have an additional copyright tag indicating the copyright status in the source country. " 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 21:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. A reasonable number of relevant images are present.
 Done
7. Overall assessment. Overall, what's here is well-sourced and decently presented, if a little short. I'm going to have to fail mostly for criteria 3a. Compare, for example, Edwin McMillan or Friedrich Accum which are much more comprehensive. Most of the sources are already here, but the text needs significant expansion to meet GA criteria.
@Forbes72: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Coldwell: Sure. The improvements are good, but most of the issues I mentioned are still there. I don't think this article is that close to GA, which is why I didn't put the review on hold. Maybe you disagree, but I would suggest relisting on WP:GAN when the article has maybe 50% more content. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 21:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)