Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Thomas Johnston (engraver)/1

Thomas Johnston (engraver)

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Consensus is that the article has been rewritten and improved sufficiently to retain its GA status. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

Shearonink, one thing to be aware of is that DC often used content from one source, but stuck another citation on it, so you can't be sure anything he wrote isn't copyvio just because it's not a copyvio of the citation attached to the text. I suggest installing WP:Who Wrote That? and being sure you obliterate all traces of DC if you want to save the listing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear...yes, I know. I have worked my way through all the refs, deleted much, fixed some other things...the problem is that he wrote so much in this article. Obliterate it all? *sigh*. Shearonink (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Or rewrite in your own words to be sure it didn't come from some other offline source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, he wrote 82.9% of the page... I feel somewhat responsible since I was the initial GA reviewer. I've basically decided anyway to pull the article completely apart and am going over *everything* with a fine-toothed editorial comb. Is it written in WP-stone that all his text should/must be excised or completely re-written? Much of it seems to be bland facts that would be difficult to completely re-craft - I mean how many different ways can you say "The sky is blue" or "George Washington was the first President of the United States", etc.. At this point in the process, so far as I can tell, this article doesn't seem to be as riddled with overwhelming copyvios like many of his other GAs. (One note is that some sources were published earlier than the 1927 copyright cut-off, but, even so, - yes I know we'd still need attribution - I haven't come across a ton of cut&pastes into this article... But maybe I'm wrong on all that. Shearonink (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Trust your judgment ... if you see wording that sounds like it could have come from elsewhere, rewrite it. Based on the dozens of his articles I've been through, my own experience is that I don't trust a single word he wrote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 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)

That junk should be built into a horizontal template; it's not an appropriate use of See also. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree that is it junk of a type but I am keeping them there for the moment since I have posted a Possible new categories query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories since these American Colonial Cats don't seem to exist (so far as I can tell) and I think they'd be useful. Shearonink (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable ... if you need a model, see Template:Tourette syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia - Could you take a look at the Johnston template I have dummied up in my Sandbox and let me know if it's good to go? Or not. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not up on all the technical aspects of template editing, but to the best of my knowledge, yes, that's the idea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 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)

I'm having a look with Who Wrote That? of whatever remnants remain of DC content ... keeping in mind the sorts of sloppy research and writing found in other articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Article: His first known engraving is his 1729 Plan of Boston which had a dedication to Massachusetts Governor William Burnet.[1]
• Source: As Burnet was governor of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay in 1727–29, it would appear that this plate must bear about the same date, and it would thus be the earliest known production of Johnston. [1]

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)

• Article: Johnston also worked as a japanner, a coats of arms painter, and a publisher of books.
• Source: Boston house painter and decorator, japanner, engraver, painter of coats of arms, church singer, publisher of singing-books and pioneer New England builder of organs, Johnston was also ...

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)

• With these adjustments, I've reworked the bit above to remove vestiges of too-close paraphrasing, while also addressing another aspect of DC writing that was frequently promoted up the GA pole without adequate prose scruting; that is, his paragraphs made no sense, but reflected haphazard chunking in of unrelated and irrelevant factoids as if to meet the DYK word limits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Next, from this source, we see another common element in DC content. This source names him as Johnson, not Johnston. Yet we don't mention that. Because of other sloppiness in DC content, one could wonder if he even has the right person (he didn't always). This sort of thing should be worked out somewhere in the text and by doing full research on other sources. Was he referred to as Johnson by others, or was this source just off ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  ah, ha this source also gives us Johnson and yet the article never mentions that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Have just added a referenced Note re: the Johnson/Johnston variants with this edit. Shearonink (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• His furniture manufacture included rendering raised and embossed images into clocks and furniture.

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)

• Actually, that text is mine. Because rendering embossed images actually is "japanning"...there were only so many ways to repeat the japanning term without feeling like a broken record so explanatory text didn't seem awry in this case... I can recraft that text if it seems needful. Shearonink (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I've adjusted that text to hopefully make it clearer. Shearonink (talk) 07:07, 22 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 *sigh* This all makes me incredibly sad... From the beginning of this GAR I had hoped that this GA as a GA could be rescued. I know you're right, but I'm going to come back to this later today. Thinking ahead...to "De-GA" this article in its present state, I just need to remove all its present content & stub-ify it into a couple sentences.

Something like:

Thomas Johnston (1708-1767)[sources for dates] was an engraver known for creating [famous engraving],[source] He was also the first known manufacturer of pipe organs in Colonial America.[source] The artist John Greenwood worked in his shop.[source]

Can I retain the craftspeople Template since I created it? Would all that be ok?

Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

There is probably more salvageable than that :) There is no hurry. Yes, I suggest keeping the template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, my problem going forward is that DC wrote about 69.4% of the article's present text. Since all of his contributions are suspect (and, yes, rightly so), if I delete all of it this rewrite of the lead and early paragraphs is an example what would be left... Some of the present GA's wording is utterly "The sky is blue" banal to me... so can I just write whatever out in common-sense language and that would be ok? I don't know how I can avoid all of DC's words/text...I just want to do the right thing by the subject and do everything according to "according to Hoyle" and the parameters of this mass-GAR process. Since DC is such a hot-button issue I'd rather not have someone come along later and nullify my non-GA version because I maybe used some words that DC also had used. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Remember that 69% includes stuff like citations ... Who Wrote That shows a good deal of what is there now is yours. You just have to comb through everything the way I did in the examples above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Have continued to chip away. DC's contributions now down to 53%, mine are at 38.4%. If anyone want to look in on this GAR's progress and read over the present version - including the amazing SandyGeorgia - and maybe give some feedback, that would be helpful. I need to take a break for the rest of today. Shearonink (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Just ran WWT again...My contributions are at 44.4%, DC's at 48%. His contributions to the article text are minimal at present, I think his percentage is mostly contained to references and so on. Shearonink (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Been taking a look. Not sure what to do with "initial known print of a historical event in the colonies", it doesn't make sense to me, and I don't really like working from snippet views. I can't quite figure out the edit history at the moment. My suggestion would have been to take every source and turn it into a series of bullet points, and then putting all those together yourself. You seem to have done a lot of rewriting, so perhaps you've managed this in another fashion. Is there specific feedback you're looking for? CMD (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

CMD - I just C/E'ed that phrase, found a museum description that I think will suffice.

As to the article itself...I'm just trying to save it as a GA and doing everything I can towards that end. I have already done what you suggested but in my own fashion. I threw out all the offline sources and then have gone through each online source - checking what it actually states and seeing if the article is written accordingly. I think in its present iteration that (maybe?) all of the problematic DC content - outright copyvios, close paraphrasing, leaping to conclusions unsupported by the then-cited reference's text, etc. - has been taken care of but I don't know at this point. I have to say...doing all this research I sure know more about Thomas Johnston than lol I ever wanted to know.

There is one thing. I have been trying to find a CC-BY-SA/"Free" photo of his memorial tablet that is one of the few inside Boston's Old North Church but the only photo I have found so far is on BillionGraves and that is behind a registration/paywall - https://billiongraves.com/grave/THOMAS-JOHNSTON/16870280.

I guess that's about it. Thanks for your edits. I keep on trying to get other things done in Real Life but Thomas Johnston keeps drawing me back. Shearonink (talk) 15:27, 23 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)

That's a ton of work there! If you have personally checked and verified every source listed and every citation for copyvio and too-close paraphrasing, you could mark the article as now clean at the CCI page. As to whether it meets GA standards, I have to leave that to others; I have never participated at GA, and don't understand the standards. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Thank you. I do think I've gone over everything in this article as much as anyone possibly could. I now know more about Thomas Johnston than I ever wanted to lol. I apologize but my brain is toast today...can you please take pity on me and post the CCI link here? Thankseverso, Shearonink (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Given the ping, I note that the items I spot checked did not show any copyright violation or source misattribution. Taking a look at the other criteria, nothing stands out immensely. The most obvious source to raise interest is the youtube one, however this points to a primary source and seems appropriately used. Not an area of personal en.wiki familiarity, but writing and breadth seem alright. No complaints from me. CMD (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks CMD - appreciate your thoughts on this very much. Shearonink (talk) 16:56, 1 March 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)

Shearonink see my note at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Automatic scorer/1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Sandy - Re your note at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Automatic scorer/1 - Yes, I have looked into/read/examined all cited sources in this article. I can find no present "too close paraphrasing" in this article. I am unable to find any other of DC's problematic editing habits - misrepresenting sources' information, misattribution of sources, and so on - in this article in its present form. Anyone is welcome to go over the content to see if I am mistaken. The progenitor of this mess was wily in his misuse of sources and information. I must say, I do think that even though it is possible that I may have missed something I think it is highly improbable. Shearonink (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to the need to clean up citations as long as we're at it (re-read my comment there). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Note: I believe this GAR (and all DCGARs) should be closed by an independent person; in one week, we will have four GAR Coords at least, and they should make the call. A week deadline is not reasonable or necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, just now saw this. A week isn't reasonable? I guess it'll just wait until maybe someone independent can get to it or whatever happens (having seen your recent post at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ramsdell Theatre/1). Somehow I remained unaware that I might not be allowed to close this GAR but it is what it is.. Though seeing how grueling all this has been on the 2 GARs I've undertaken? I doubt there will be very many reassessments up for closing. At all. Shearonink (talk) 20:08, 5 March 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

• 1-Heraldic Journal - both A, B - checked.
• 2-Dunlap 1918 - A,B,C - checked.
• 3-cite map - checked.
• 4-Hitchings 1985 - checked.
• 5-Staff/Home Page - checked.
• 6-Bolton 1923 - checked.
• 7-Williams 1915 - A,B - checked.
• 8-Japanned Furniture/News Journal - checked.
• 9-Hitchings 1973 - checked.
• 10-Boston Folks' Coats of Arms/Boston Daily Globe/1915 - checked.
• 11-Owen/1985 - checked.
• 12-Owen/1979 - checked.
• 13-Ogasapian/2007 - checked.
• 14-OHS Database - A,B - checked.
• 15-Babcock/1947 - checked.
• 16-Dudas/2021 - checked.
• 17-Ogasapian/2007 - A,B - checked.
• 18-Owen/1985 - checked.
• 19-Hitchings/1973 - checked.
• 20-Hitchings/1973 - checked.
• 21-Kane/1998 - checked. A personal note: This source is offline and unavailable online but I have consulted a copy personally. It is a huge book with over 1200 pages. If anyone has a problem with this offline source they are free to consult a copy in a reference library like the Library of Congress or the Smithsonian.
• 22-Kane/1998 - checked.

That's all I have time for now. Will continue as soon as I can get to finishing this all up, hopefully within the next few days. Shearonink (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

Continuing, the fourth source is written as:

• Exhibition Catalogs (1908). Exhibition Catalogs, 1886–1909: 1908–1909. Exhibition Catalogs.

meaning the author, title and publisher oddly are all the same (Exhibition Catalogs). That can't be a valid source. DC apparently did this because he didn't know how to sfn when there was no author; you can see how to do that in the diff I give above, where I fixed Beers, which similarly was not the author, rather the publisher. If you click on the link supplied for this "Exhibition Catalog", you will find that the correct citation would be:

• Exhibition Catalogs, 1886–1909: 1908–1909. Grolier Club. 1908.

Yes, the citation page there actually states there is no publisher, because the Grolier Club published it. [3] No need to go looking for an author or a publisher by the name of "Exhibition Catalogs".

And so on ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually it is very clear. So, you are stating that the sources, thought what they state is verifiable at the links provided, that the way the citations are stated are incorrect. . Ok, Got it. Shearonink (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes ... in the case of those I checked here, there is no effect on reliability, but in all of his other work there is ... which is why we should make sure we get it right (that is, we aren't hiding something with incorrect citations). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's another good one:

• New-York Historical Society, Library (1969). New-York Historical Society. New York Historical Society.

The author, title, and publisher are all New York Historical Society, as in the Exhibition Catalogs. Oddly, the real title of the work is never even listed! The actual citation should look more like:

• Treasures of Americana from the Library of the New-York Historical Society: A Short Title List of Rare and Important Books, Broadsides, Maps and Manuscripts on Exhibition at the Society, January 24-August 29, 1969. (1969). New York Historical Society.

That sort of stuff is throughout his work, and in many cases, there was no link, so copyvio checking became impossible. It is often hard to figure out exactly what work is being cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Another non-sensical citation:

• The Society (1918). Colonial Society of Massachusetts. The Society SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 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:

• On the left an above view of marching soldiers, on the right the view of the soldiers' camp and of the battle itself.
• Johnston engraved Blodgett's sketch onto a copper plate with Boston printer Richard Draper printing it,[27] with the print then being sold by Blodgett in December 1755.

  Note the source claiming it was first says: 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)

I don't quite agree that copyedits are needed on those sentences, on that information.

"On the left...(etc)" What isn't understood about that sentence? It describes the scene as it appears in the print (which conflates ALL the action over the entire course of the Battle into one panoramic scene where everything is happening everywhere all at once).

Re: the "it was first" source. What isn't to be understood about that sentence? There are TWO prints in the literature, the first one - Johnston's 1755 American print done in Boston, the other one/the 2nd of the scene...the Jeffreys 1756 print done in London. It seems that Blodgett took Johnston's copper plate to London, had it reworked by Jeffreys and that version was subseqently published in London (a mere six weeks later I believe). The two prints are very different, that is why I made it clear which is which in the article.

This>>> https://bostonraremaps.com/inventory/rare-english-edition-of-the-first-american-battle-plan/ is the Jeffreys print.

This->>>File:1890 Facsimile of the 1755 Thomas Johnston engraving of the Battle of Lake George,.jpg is an 1890 reprint of the 1755 Johnston original.

Re this Obituary edit. Per the PLS CHECK: That is the original publication as quoted by Green. It seemed appropriate to name the original source. I still think that is appropriate for verifiability and it seems inappropriate to delete that information. Perhaps it could have been rendered more elegantly but it was not incorrect.

Re this "dashes" edit. Per MOS:RANGE page & date ranges are supposed to use the shorter "en dash". All the changes in this edit are to the longer "em dash"...

That's all for now. Shearonink (talk) 20:08, 5 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)

I've been watching this and would like to get it closed this weekend. There's definitely hope for keeping this GA, but I would like to hear Sandy's thoughts. CMD's endorsement does help quite a bit. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Thx for waiting for me, but I'm swamped. It is now marked off at the CCI, so that part is addressed, and the citations are clean, but other than that, I don't really understand the GA standards, but I think a copyedit is needed. Some samples:

Grammatically, this seems to me like an awful lot of tense switching or something:

• While he advertised his businesses as being organ making, engraving, and furniture merchant, he also worked as a japanner, painted coats of arms, and published books.

This seems quite repetitive:

Maybe it seems repetitive but it is not. All those businesses and crafts are separate skills. All those crafts and skills appear in the literature about Johnston.

• He was an engraver of skill, and a heraldic painter. The paintings and engravings he sold in his store included views of Boston and heraldic works.

Why not something like: He was an engraver of skill and a heraldic painter whose works included views of Boston. (What is an "engraver of skill"?)

Re: engraver of skill - Johnston was well-known throughout New England, advertised in the newspapers during his working life and made coats of arms for prominent citizens especially for what we would think of as mourning or funeral cards. He is probably one of the most well-documented craftsmen of his era. I tried to get a CC-By-SA photo of his memorial plaque that appears inside the sanctuary of Boston's Old North Church but I was unsuccessful.

Why the hyphen:

• This Johnston pipe-organ was in regular use until the 1820s.

Because I have always seen the word hyphenated. I can't find anything that says the hyphen is wrong but I'll go ahead and remove it.

Something off in the punctuation here:

• Patricia E. Kane, writing in Colonial Massachusetts Silversmiths and Jewelers, says that though "the identity of his master is not known" also theorizes that Johnston may have been trained by the craftsman William Burgis.

Fixed.

I stopped there because swamped, but maybe a run through to pick up any ce needs before closing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Thanks for your input. Of course, any WP article - even the vaunted Featured ones - could usually do with some copyedits. Your proposals above are fine, I've replied to all of them, adjusted the text, etc but in my opinion copy edits such as these are somewhat beyond the scope of the six GA criteria. Is this article now good enough. I think so but someone other than myself will have to close it as retaining or as removing the GA imprimatur. Shearonink (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

As the copyright problems have been resolved, I think this is of sufficient quality to retain its circle. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I'll close this as a keep now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.