Talk:John Johnson (inventor)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Johnson (inventor)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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." [1] 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  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  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  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)

Copyedit responses

• YES = should be "light reflected from the person" --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Johnson (inventor)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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 Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Johnson (inventor)/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

1. 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:

2. 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:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

7. 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)

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

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

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: [2]
• 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?

• Replaced Ref 9 with {sfn|Root|1864|page=349}. It says, "Mr Wolcott. The latter after examining the camera described by Daguerre thought that an image could be obtained in less time than by that by employing a reflector of wide aperture and short focus Therefore a reflector designed for taking portraits from life was determined on having eight inches diameter and twelve inches focal distance for parallel rays and short focus."
•  Done

• 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)

• @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)

• @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)

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

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)

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

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)