Talk:Thomas Johnston (engraver)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Birth date?

Is it just an odd coincidence that Johnston was born on May 8 and died on May 8, or is this an error in transcription from a source to this article? – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Mistake on my part. Fixed to birth as only in 1708 and age of 59. Thanks for catching.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that we do not know if he was 58 or 59 when he died. If he was born after May 8 in 1908, he would have been only 58. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 00:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I intend to do a GA review on this article and will start within the next few days. Shearonink (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

• No obvious "Quick Fail" issues - no obvious copyright violations, no cleanup banners, etc. Shearonink (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   No issues found. Shearonink (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Yes it does. Shearonink (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

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:

   Looks good. Shearonink (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

   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:

   All the cited sources are reliable, the referencing is in agreement within the article but I have an issue with an External link.

   • This issue has been resolved. Shearonink (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

   Labeling Johnston's memorial marker within WP as a "gravesite" would seem to be in error. His obit (*where* were you able to find a copy btw? The complete obit seems to be unavailable online - congrats on seeing it) states his body was buried in the King's Chapel Burying Ground. There are about a supposed 1000 burials there of which 700 or so are known. That marble tablet states "This tablet in memory of" which, to my understanding, means the body is not buried there, at the memorial's location within the church but elsewhere. Also, the transcription of the wording says Johnston was 39 years old at the time of his death and then there is the FindAGrave/User-edited aspect with Billiongraves. I'd like to discuss why you included this link and maybe why it should stay. Shearonink (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

   • I just did some research on this and came up with a JSTOR article Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society Vol. 9 (1866 - 1867), pp. 196-226 (31 pages) and this is the top part of page 214 and here is the bottom part. As you can see the bottom part confirms King's Chapel yard. They say "tombstone" so I get the impression this is where he is buried. That's seems logical to me as he shows associated with King's Chapel as a singer, so apparently he was a member of this church. I notice they say "yard" and I am familiar with a churchyard being a graveyard. It also says he was 59 years old as I say in the article. Does this help clear up things and verify the Beers link of page 572 as being correct. So, bottom line of what I have written in the Later life and death section as being correct. How do you see it? Should I put in the article this additional reference of page 214? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
   • I enlarged the Tablet picture on my PC screen of the BillionGraves webpage and it appears to me to be 59 where I see the editor of this has said 39 YEARS but I think his eyes are not as good as mine -OR- somebody wrote it wrong on that Tablet. With the two sources I found as saying fifty-nine, and the mathematics comes out this way from his birth being in Boston in 1708. The death date always comes up as 1767. How do you see it? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
   • Here is another book source that says the same thing and says he is "buried" there. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
   • The Heraldic Journal confirms all this again of the burial place and age of fifty-nine years. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

   • Actually we're pretty much in agreement. The sources do state 1)that he is buried in the yard and 2)his age is 59. I agree with all that of course. My issue - very picky *but* - is with the piping for the marble tablet's link. It should says something similar to "memorial tablet" or "memorial [something}]" because the marble tablet is most probably *not* his actual grave marker or location of his remains. Shearonink (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

   • Made it Thomas Johnston memorial tablet - will that work? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

   • Yes, thanks. Shearonink (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
   • So here is some additional information.

   map of the King's Chapel Burying Ground Look in section E, Row 27

   City of Boston Historic Burying Grounds Initiative grave listing with individual locations - Again, 27 E, Grave 492, King's Chapel Cemetery.

   Interment records - Lot E, Grave 492

   So. Johnston's actual burial/grave site seems to be located near that outside wall away from the actual Chapel building, in the corner nearest City Hall. Shearonink (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   None found. Shearonink (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No issues found. Shearonink (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Yes. Shearonink (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Yes. Shearonink (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

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

   No POV issues. Shearonink (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

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

   Yeah, no edit wars. Shearonink (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   See the following. Shearonink (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

   Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   There is a problem with File:The century illustrated monthly magazine (1882) (14595729868).jpg|thumb|upright 0.8| George Washington engraving -

   

   George Washington engraving

   . This engraving was apparently done by a different person, a "T. Johnson" (apparently in 1890) not Thomas Johnston who died in 1767. Also, the GW portraits this engraving is based on were done in 1783/84. In my opinion this image should be removed from the article. Shearonink (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

   •  Done removed. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

   Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   PASS:

   I will do some deep passes to make sure I haven't missed anything but I will be inclined to Pass this article to GA status. Shearonink (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

   Read it again a time or two to make sure... Well-written, engaging prose, great referencing. It was a pleasure to read up about Johnston & his life. This article is a WP:GA. Shearonink (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2020 (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)

Working through this article's refs per the individual GAR

See Intent to open an independent GAR.
These refs are all online and check out as reliable. (This section is only to check out that 1)these sources exist and 2)they are reliable.):

• Ref #1 - 1907/Stauffer - also free of copyright
• Ref #2 - 1971/Reps
• Ref #3 - 1918/Dunlap - adjusted the URL-linkage to the exact page which is both 196 *and* 312
• Ref #5 - 1915/Williams - Ancestry of Lawrence Williams: Part I, Ancestry of His Father, Simeon Breed ...- Page n221/PART II
• Ref #6 - 1998/Japanned Furniture-News Journal
• Ref #7 - 1924/Portraits of Increase Mather...This one might be problematic. States the Johnston portrait of Mather theory but then discounts that Johnston actually did that portrait so it shouldn't be used as a ref for the preceding statement. This ref is tied to ref4 by the sentence - The Boston Museum of Fine Arts has a portrait of Increase Mather by Johnston, and the Massachusetts Historical Society also has one attributed to him.
• Ref #8 - 1915/Boston Daily Globe/Boston Folks Coats of Arms

These refs are not online:

• Ref #4 - 1999/Garraty

That's all for now. I work my way through all the refs eventually. Shearonink (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Moar refs
Available online:

• Ref #9 - 1865/Heraldic Journal
• Ref #11 - 2007/Ogasapian
• Ref #12 - 2016/"The OHS Pipe Organ Database"
• Ref #13 - 1947/Babcock
• Ref #16 - 2016/Ciment...stated info is available at the cite
• Ref #17 - 1957/Mass Hist Society...stated info is available at the cite

Not online:

• Ref #10 - 1979/Owen - this Internet archive link is no longer available
• Ref #14 & Ref #15 - 1971/colonial society of Mass - author? is not clear from the URL, also text unavailable

Should be deleted, unavailable:

• Ref #33 - is to Thomas Johnston's May 11, 1767 Obituary and I have been unable to find it online so it should be deleted. Shearonink (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

See Ref #20 comments below. Shearonink (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Moar MOAR refs:
Available online:

• Ref #18 - New York State/1st historical print
• Ref #19 - New York Historical Society/1st historical print
• Ref #20 - Green/1890 - this ref is legit contains GREAT information, AND contains the BOSTON EVENING POST May 11, 1767 17OBITUARY (why DC did not cite this as being where he got the Ref #33 info....*sigh) but does not back up the statement it is attached to re: "persuaded Johnston" (etc)
• Ref #23 - Winsor/1887...fully available, gives complete information on the copying of Johnston's original plate in other publications
• Ref #24 - Exhibition Catalogues/1908...listing of some of Johnston's engravings
• Ref #25 - Readex/1964...available online but is this really needed? AGAIN with the "first historical print"
• Ref #28 - Williams/1915 - available online at Internet Archive, another ancestry
• Ref #29 - ALSO to Williams/1915 - available online via Hathi Trust...see Ref #5 + Ref #28 28 & 29 are the same ref, why are they 2 different cites, Page 228/182
• Ref #30 - Author is not REPS, author is Sinclair Hitchings. Colonial Society of Mass, Chapter should have been cited, multiple cites to this book seemingly under different refs
• Ref #32 - 1905/Beers - apoplexy not in cited ref. Available online. Stated as an "apoplectic fit" - my mistake. Shearonink (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Ref #33 - Obituary - UNAVAILBLE ONLINE BUT is AVAILABLE THROUGH REF #20

NOT available online:

• Ref #21 - Kane/1997...this ref is to a subscriber-only ref/archive.org cite and so I CANNOT check it.
• Ref #22 - Ramsay/1975...not available online and also, it isn't even NEEDED.
• Ref #26 - NYPL...not fully-available online, only available in a quoted/truncated form also #25/Readex is problematic
• Ref #27 - Library of Congress...not available online AT ALL, also DC "quoted" from it

OK, that is it for going through all the cites as to being available online or not. Next, picking apart the statements & possible paraphrasing etc. Shearonink (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)