This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Thomas Johnston (engraver) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Thomas Johnston (engraver) has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
January 22, 2018. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
Thomas Johnston made the first historical print engraved in America? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
As part of
WP:DCGAR and as the original GA reviewer in 2018 I am placing this article nominated by
Doug Coldwell up for GAR to prevent it from being mass-delisted. The subject appears to be notable enough for an article as a Colonial American engraver/organ-builder/first historical print in the the American colonies, etc., etc. but I intend to pick apart the text for copyright issues/too-close paraphrasing & to burrow into all the sources as being reliable and backing up what they are supposed to back up etc. - all to figure out if there is enough meat left on the bones of this article after the Review to retain its GA status.
Shearonink (
talk)
18:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
I have already gone through all the refs etc on
Talk:Thomas Johnston (engraver) under the
Working through this article's refs per the individual GAR section as to whether (or not) the cited refs are available online so their claims can be easily verified.
Shearonink (
talk)
19:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Went through the lead - simplistic text, instituted various fixes. Also deleted Garraty refs as being offline and inaccessible. The former Garraty statements/refs are now backed up by Dunlap/1918 & WIlliams/1915. Shearonink ( talk) 20:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Just an aside...I had great hopes when I started this GAR but the refs are such a mess...for instance the Hitchings & Reps refs are the same thing and Reps shouldn't even be credited! Plus the "Hitchings" cites are to a Google Books with no preview and the Reps are to the actual content... I'll fix those and then am taking a break and reconsidering whether or not I want to continue. The issue for me is that Johnston is notable & I think deserves a GA but definitely not the DC version I started to review. Shearonink ( talk) 20:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted the errant/false claims re: "Mather portrait". See Page 6 of Murdock's The Portraits of Increase Mather: With Some Notes on Thomas Johnson, an English Mezzotinter where he specifically states this Thomas Johnston didn't do the portrait. Shearonink ( talk) 05:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Fixed issues with the Library of Congress publication cite (didn't have the pages in the URL, URL was to an incomplete cite, etc). Added ref for list of Johnston's engravings. Shearonink ( talk) 17:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted redundant and unneeded link to Green's "Blodget's Plan..." in External links section. The book is already used as a reference. An oddity is the "See also" section, linking to multiple articles about American Colonial organ builders/engravers/printers...I think that these 3 designations might be worthwhile Categories to be enacted. Shearonink ( talk) 18:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
If anyone wants to look over my progress, I'd appreciate it. I've torn apart and put back together almost all of the text, created a template of associated articles, replaced the See also section with that Template, deleted references, adjusted captions, etc. I just don't know if it's enough...there are only so many ways to say "the sky is blue". I am waiting on a printed source to see if I can add information on who Johnston was apprenticed to since that information is presently missing. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 06:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
This is typical of DC's writing; specifically, his quest for "first facts" and overstating those facts. He translates a qualified statement in the source to a statement of fact in Wikivoice. Unless there is another source calling this a Johnston first, the text should more carefully handle this content. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Here we see remnants of DC's too-close-paraphrasing, where he re-arranged and altered a few words. It's not just words; it's structure. This is an example of why it can be hard to fix DC content. He lifted structure from one article, and then later attached other citations to content. I've rewritten (see below). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
This is cited to Dunlap but I don't find it in Dunlap. This is a DC classic, whereby text is taken from one source but cited to another, and the wording of this sentence is suggestive of copyvio. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I stopped there, after looking at only a few paragraphs in one section. This is enough to show why I believe that blowing up any DC content and starting over is the fastest route to a proper article, and that work remains to prevent delisting. We can't just rephrase to avoid too-close paraphrasing; everything DC wrote is suspect, thorough research is needed on anything claimed as fact, and his content needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia CMD - The reference book I was waiting for (about Johnston's possible apprenticeship) just came in. I have adjusted the article text accordingly with its information and I think the re-writing/recrafting/deleting of text/deleting of inaccessible sources on this article is now done. Not sure what the next step in this particular mass-GA process is, but I think this article in its present state should retain its GA status. Some clean-up might possibly remain but the last Who Wrote This? is telling me that DC's edits are down to 38.8% of this article (and doesn't that include the references and the Bibliography?). Taking a break - Shearonink ( talk) 05:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
NOTICE
Thomas Johnston (engraver) is one of the many
WP:DCGAR articles. I am finished with its cleanup and am going to leave this GAR open for the next week, until Tuesday/March 7th. If there aren't any according-to-policy objections/statements, I will close the GAR at that time. Barring any unforeseen issues, I intend for the article to retain its present GA status.
Shearonink (
talk)
21:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I have already stated I've checked everything and not that I think this next is completely necessary but since it seems to be perhaps necessary, here goes...
Below. When I state the Reference. When I state the a/b/c instances. That will unequivocally mean that ALL references and ALL the information they back up, have been checked, personally, by me.
And that will have to do.
Though, of course, if anyone wants to check my scholarship? Have at it.
CITATIONS
I'm sorry I'm not making myself clear; the problem is that DC's work is not often verifiable (and copyvio is hard to track down), because author names are wrong and book titles are wrong. I recognize that clean citations aren't part of WP:WIAGA, but in the case of DC's work, the citations are so bad that the content becomes unverifiable, and we should get it cleaned up. As an example, in the first three sources listed, two of the authors were wrong, and all three book titles were wrong. [2] That's a sample just to clean up those listed in sources using sfns, without even looking in the other citations in ref tags. What I'm pointing out in the other DC GARs is that leaving out author names and correct publishers often obscured non-reliable sources, so they should all be checked. Since three out of three that I checked were wrong, it seems this should be addressed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Finished citation cleanup; here's the cumulative diff. It baffles my mind how DC got so many GAs through when the sources were scarcely verifiable. Pride in authorship. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
There are still copyedit needs, samples only:
Engraved and printed in Boston by Thomas Johnston, Blodget’s Prospective Plan found a market in England where Thomas Jefferys, a skilled engraver and cartographic publisher, issued the map with a somewhat altered design.so it's even harder to understand what the sentence about printing (above) means. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia - Are there GAR Coordinators now? As the Reviewer (and "article rejuvenator" lol) I want to close this review with the article retaining its GA designation but am unsure as to the procedure especially since Thomas Johnston (engraver) was one of the DC bunch... Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 13:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Thomas Johnston (engraver) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Thomas Johnston (engraver) has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
January 22, 2018. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
Thomas Johnston made the first historical print engraved in America? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
As part of
WP:DCGAR and as the original GA reviewer in 2018 I am placing this article nominated by
Doug Coldwell up for GAR to prevent it from being mass-delisted. The subject appears to be notable enough for an article as a Colonial American engraver/organ-builder/first historical print in the the American colonies, etc., etc. but I intend to pick apart the text for copyright issues/too-close paraphrasing & to burrow into all the sources as being reliable and backing up what they are supposed to back up etc. - all to figure out if there is enough meat left on the bones of this article after the Review to retain its GA status.
Shearonink (
talk)
18:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
I have already gone through all the refs etc on
Talk:Thomas Johnston (engraver) under the
Working through this article's refs per the individual GAR section as to whether (or not) the cited refs are available online so their claims can be easily verified.
Shearonink (
talk)
19:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Went through the lead - simplistic text, instituted various fixes. Also deleted Garraty refs as being offline and inaccessible. The former Garraty statements/refs are now backed up by Dunlap/1918 & WIlliams/1915. Shearonink ( talk) 20:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Just an aside...I had great hopes when I started this GAR but the refs are such a mess...for instance the Hitchings & Reps refs are the same thing and Reps shouldn't even be credited! Plus the "Hitchings" cites are to a Google Books with no preview and the Reps are to the actual content... I'll fix those and then am taking a break and reconsidering whether or not I want to continue. The issue for me is that Johnston is notable & I think deserves a GA but definitely not the DC version I started to review. Shearonink ( talk) 20:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted the errant/false claims re: "Mather portrait". See Page 6 of Murdock's The Portraits of Increase Mather: With Some Notes on Thomas Johnson, an English Mezzotinter where he specifically states this Thomas Johnston didn't do the portrait. Shearonink ( talk) 05:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Fixed issues with the Library of Congress publication cite (didn't have the pages in the URL, URL was to an incomplete cite, etc). Added ref for list of Johnston's engravings. Shearonink ( talk) 17:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted redundant and unneeded link to Green's "Blodget's Plan..." in External links section. The book is already used as a reference. An oddity is the "See also" section, linking to multiple articles about American Colonial organ builders/engravers/printers...I think that these 3 designations might be worthwhile Categories to be enacted. Shearonink ( talk) 18:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
If anyone wants to look over my progress, I'd appreciate it. I've torn apart and put back together almost all of the text, created a template of associated articles, replaced the See also section with that Template, deleted references, adjusted captions, etc. I just don't know if it's enough...there are only so many ways to say "the sky is blue". I am waiting on a printed source to see if I can add information on who Johnston was apprenticed to since that information is presently missing. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 06:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
This is typical of DC's writing; specifically, his quest for "first facts" and overstating those facts. He translates a qualified statement in the source to a statement of fact in Wikivoice. Unless there is another source calling this a Johnston first, the text should more carefully handle this content. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Here we see remnants of DC's too-close-paraphrasing, where he re-arranged and altered a few words. It's not just words; it's structure. This is an example of why it can be hard to fix DC content. He lifted structure from one article, and then later attached other citations to content. I've rewritten (see below). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
This is cited to Dunlap but I don't find it in Dunlap. This is a DC classic, whereby text is taken from one source but cited to another, and the wording of this sentence is suggestive of copyvio. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I stopped there, after looking at only a few paragraphs in one section. This is enough to show why I believe that blowing up any DC content and starting over is the fastest route to a proper article, and that work remains to prevent delisting. We can't just rephrase to avoid too-close paraphrasing; everything DC wrote is suspect, thorough research is needed on anything claimed as fact, and his content needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia CMD - The reference book I was waiting for (about Johnston's possible apprenticeship) just came in. I have adjusted the article text accordingly with its information and I think the re-writing/recrafting/deleting of text/deleting of inaccessible sources on this article is now done. Not sure what the next step in this particular mass-GA process is, but I think this article in its present state should retain its GA status. Some clean-up might possibly remain but the last Who Wrote This? is telling me that DC's edits are down to 38.8% of this article (and doesn't that include the references and the Bibliography?). Taking a break - Shearonink ( talk) 05:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
NOTICE
Thomas Johnston (engraver) is one of the many
WP:DCGAR articles. I am finished with its cleanup and am going to leave this GAR open for the next week, until Tuesday/March 7th. If there aren't any according-to-policy objections/statements, I will close the GAR at that time. Barring any unforeseen issues, I intend for the article to retain its present GA status.
Shearonink (
talk)
21:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I have already stated I've checked everything and not that I think this next is completely necessary but since it seems to be perhaps necessary, here goes...
Below. When I state the Reference. When I state the a/b/c instances. That will unequivocally mean that ALL references and ALL the information they back up, have been checked, personally, by me.
And that will have to do.
Though, of course, if anyone wants to check my scholarship? Have at it.
CITATIONS
I'm sorry I'm not making myself clear; the problem is that DC's work is not often verifiable (and copyvio is hard to track down), because author names are wrong and book titles are wrong. I recognize that clean citations aren't part of WP:WIAGA, but in the case of DC's work, the citations are so bad that the content becomes unverifiable, and we should get it cleaned up. As an example, in the first three sources listed, two of the authors were wrong, and all three book titles were wrong. [2] That's a sample just to clean up those listed in sources using sfns, without even looking in the other citations in ref tags. What I'm pointing out in the other DC GARs is that leaving out author names and correct publishers often obscured non-reliable sources, so they should all be checked. Since three out of three that I checked were wrong, it seems this should be addressed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Finished citation cleanup; here's the cumulative diff. It baffles my mind how DC got so many GAs through when the sources were scarcely verifiable. Pride in authorship. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
There are still copyedit needs, samples only:
Engraved and printed in Boston by Thomas Johnston, Blodget’s Prospective Plan found a market in England where Thomas Jefferys, a skilled engraver and cartographic publisher, issued the map with a somewhat altered design.so it's even harder to understand what the sentence about printing (above) means. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia - Are there GAR Coordinators now? As the Reviewer (and "article rejuvenator" lol) I want to close this review with the article retaining its GA designation but am unsure as to the procedure especially since Thomas Johnston (engraver) was one of the DC bunch... Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 13:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)