John Johnson (inventor) was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This orphaned
talk page,
subpage,
image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under
CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia. If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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.
| |
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.
| |
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.
| |
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.
| |
2c. it contains no original research. | Information taken from the sources.
| |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Prose is original as far as I can tell.
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Some things to be expanded:
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Seems reasonably focused.
| |
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.
| |
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.
| |
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.
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | A reasonable number of relevant images are present.
| |
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.
|
This orphaned
talk page,
subpage,
image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under
CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia. If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: David Eppstein ( talk · contribs) 01:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
The reason that Talk:John Johnson (inventor)/GA1 failed ( WP:GACR#C4, neutrality), was based on the claims of creating the first portrait repeated uncritically here without even mentioning the competing claims of Robert Cornelius. Instead of addressing those claims, you have doubled down on them by adding more uncritical claims of the first camera patent (rather more unlikely since Daguerre filed a patent for his camera in England on August 12, 1839). I conclude that this meets WP:GAFAIL #5: "A reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article determines that any issues from previous GA nominations have not been adequately considered". — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Z1720 ( talk · contribs) 20:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I will be reviewing this GAN shortly. Please ping me if you have any questions.
Z1720 (
talk)
20:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Comments:
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)
All of my concerns have been addressed, and I can now promote this nomination. Congradulations. Z1720 ( talk) 01:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
John Johnson (inventor) was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This orphaned
talk page,
subpage,
image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under
CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia. If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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.
| |
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.
| |
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.
| |
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.
| |
2c. it contains no original research. | Information taken from the sources.
| |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Prose is original as far as I can tell.
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Some things to be expanded:
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Seems reasonably focused.
| |
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.
| |
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.
| |
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.
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | A reasonable number of relevant images are present.
| |
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.
|
This orphaned
talk page,
subpage,
image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under
CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia. If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: David Eppstein ( talk · contribs) 01:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
The reason that Talk:John Johnson (inventor)/GA1 failed ( WP:GACR#C4, neutrality), was based on the claims of creating the first portrait repeated uncritically here without even mentioning the competing claims of Robert Cornelius. Instead of addressing those claims, you have doubled down on them by adding more uncritical claims of the first camera patent (rather more unlikely since Daguerre filed a patent for his camera in England on August 12, 1839). I conclude that this meets WP:GAFAIL #5: "A reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article determines that any issues from previous GA nominations have not been adequately considered". — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Z1720 ( talk · contribs) 20:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I will be reviewing this GAN shortly. Please ping me if you have any questions.
Z1720 (
talk)
20:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Comments:
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)
All of my concerns have been addressed, and I can now promote this nomination. Congradulations. Z1720 ( talk) 01:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)