Talk:John Johnson (inventor)/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Z1720 (talk · contribs) 20:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will be reviewing this GAN shortly. Please ping me if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments:

Lede

I am surprised at how short this lede is. Many details from his life, such as his death and legacy, are missing. I suggest expanding upon this.

Done

"John Johnson (May 28, 1813 – May 3, 1871) was a watchmaker mechanic technician and manufacturer of dental instruments. He was a nineteenth-century experimental photographer and inventor." -> "John Johnson (May 28, 1813 – May 3, 1871) was a watchmaker mechanic technician, manufacturer of dental instruments, experimental photographer and inventor." The reader doesn't need the 19th century reference as he only lived during the 19th century, so this is implied. Also, these roles should all be in the first sentence.

Done

"With a business partner he made the first patented camera that took photographs. They started the world's first commercial portrait studio." -> "With a business partner, Alexander S. Wolcott, he made the first patented camera that took photographs and started the world's first commercial portrait studio." This adds the partner's name to the lede, and combines these sentences together as they are referring to the same person.

Done

Infobox

The occupation only lists "Mechanic" but I would argue that he had other occupations like businessman and inventor. Perhaps these and others can be added here.

Done

Early life

"In 1837 he formed a business with Alexander S. Wolcott there on 52nd Street," I'm not sure if "there" is needed in this sentence, though I will not be bothered if it stays.

Done

Mid life and career

This section is quite long, which makes the reader less likely to read it. Can this section be split into two, or given level 3 headings?

Done

"On October 6, 1839, Johnson took to Wolcott a detailed copy of the specifications" -> "On October 6, 1839, Johnson showed Wolcott a detailed copy of the specifications"

Done

"Wolcott took this picture on October 7, the first portrait in the world." This claim has been flagged in previous GANs; mention that this claim is disputed should be present in the article, whether in the prose or as a note.

Done

"they opened the first studio in the world at their place of business on 52nd Street as a commercial enterprise for taking portrait pictures of people in a salon environment." -> "they opened the first studio in the world for taking portrait pictures of people in a salon environment as a commercial enterprise at their place of business on 52nd Street." I'm not thrilled with my modified sentence, but I don't want to split the details of the studio with its location.

Done

" in the New York Sun newspaper" is this The Sun (New York City)? If so, wikilink

Done

"in the fall of 1840 to give technical instructions to Beard who was setting up a Wolcott reflecting apparatus photographer's" place a comma after Beard

Done

"that he bought from Johnson for a claimed amount of £7,000 (£646,179 in 2020)" claimed by who?

Done

"This made exposure time as low as three to five minutes in bright sunlight and since a person could be still for that time it thus made portraits possible." -> "This made exposure time as low as three to five minutes in bright sunlight; since a person could be still for that time it made portraits possible."

Done

"John and Wolcott received the first U.S. patent on May 8, 1840, in photography" -> "John and Wolcott received the first U.S. patent in photography on May 8, 1840,"

Done

""Method of Taking Likenesses by Means of a Concave Reflector and Plates So Prepared as That Luminous or Other Rays Will Act Thereon." Should the quotation mark at the beginning of the italics be deleted, or a quotation mark added at the end of the italics?

Done

"Apparatus for Polishing the Plates Used in Taking Likenesses for Other Objects in Which Such Plates Are Required patent number 2,391." is "patent number 2,391" necessary? If so, I suggest putting the number before the italics in some fashion.

Done

"Johnson in 1844 sold out the studio completely to William Akers" -> "Johnson in 1844 sold the studio to William Akers"

Done

Later life

Since this section is so short, I suggest merging with the Legacy section

Done

"Johnson was treasurer of the American Photographic Society in 1860." is this the Photographic Society of America? If so, wikilink

Done

Sources

No concerns from earwig for copyright

Done

In the "Sources" section, why are there quotes next to the source? If quotes are to be included (which I do not recommend) then why is it not next to the reference number?

Done

Spotchecks have not been completed: this will be done when the above have been addressed.

Images

No concerns with copyright tags on images.

Done

Suggest adding alt text per MOS:ALT (though this is not required)

Done

I am going to place this on hold. Please ping me if there are any concerns. Z1720 (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review. I'll get started on the issues now. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

In 1840, Wolcott-Johnson's portrait camera was discovered in 1976 at the Saco Museum in Maine where Johnson had deposited it when he was its first curator." This sentence doesn't quite make sense.

Done

"Wolcott took this picture on October 7, the supposed first portrait in the world.[10][14][15] On March 4, 1840, they opened the first studio in the world" In the world is used twice in succession; I suggest a different phrasing, maybe "the world's first" for one of them (or perhaps something even better).

Done

"The newspaper claimed that it was the first daguerreotype gallery for portraits." suggest wikilinking to Daguerreotype

Done

Spotcheck

Version reviewed: [1]
Refs checked with no concerns: Ref 12
Ref 9 is verifying, "Wolcott realized that exposure time could be reduced by improving the mechanical arrangement of the image-focusing process." I could not find this information in the source. Can you quote the text from the source that supports this?

Ref 18 is verifying, "The customer would sit for their likeness to be captured on a permanent medium for future viewing." But I could not find this information in the source. Can you quote the text from the source that supports this? Also, mention of Johnson is on page 415.

Done

Ref 37 is verifying, "This made exposure time as low as three to five minutes in bright sunlight; since a person could be still for that time it made portraits possible." Can you tell me where in the source this is verified? Is this inline citation perhaps in the wrong location?

Done

Ref 38 is the same as ref 37, and perhaps is in the wrong spot?

Done

Ref 39 is verifying the information that ref 37 and 38 were supposed to verify, so this makes me think even more that ref 37 and 38 are in the wrong spots.

Done

Once the above are addressed, I will conduct another spot check of other references. Can you check the references to ensure that they are verifying the information that proceeds it? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: These references in this "Spotcheck" section came from hard copy books I previously borrowed ILL and returned. I am ordering these books again ILL, however it takes two to three weeks to get these books. So it will be about a month before I can answer the above concerns. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Coldwell: I was able to access previews of refs 37, 38, and 39 on Google books. Has this option been attempted? Z1720 (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thanks for idea. I'll look into that and see what I can do.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: All additional issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing spotcheck

Refs checked: 4, 7, 14, 38, 39.
No concerns for these.

All of my concerns have been addressed, and I can now promote this nomination. Congradulations. Z1720 (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]