Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 18 October 2020 [1].

Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom[edit]

Nominator(s): SpinningSpark 17:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the development and growth of telegraphy in the UK. Much of the early technical work occured in the UK, the country was the first to have commercial telegraph companies, and the country was central to the creation of the first worldwide telecommunications networks. The page was long overdue for creation on Wikipedia.

The page has been through an extensive peer review here as well as a very thorough GA review here. Pinging all the editors who took part in those reviews and talk page discussions in the hope they can support the FA too. @Scope creep, TedColes, Andy Dingley, and Binksternet: SpinningSpark 17:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Catslash: who got missed off the ping list. SpinningSpark 17:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: and another. SpinningSpark 17:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have replaced my previous "drive-by" nomination. I would like to nominate for FA status. I undertook the original GA review. It was what I would consider a fairly rigorous review. I wanted to examine every aspect of the article, to ensure it was as close to perfection as possible, which it was. It also underwent a fairly comprehensive peer review, which found some minor fixes.scope_creepTalk 15:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet comments
  • Kieve's recently released PDF highlights a social aspect of telegraphy that may or may not be appropriate for this article about the UK system: remote representatives in distant locations "were never again to be free from central control and direction." The telegraph in general reduced the autonomy of local officers and agents who were now expected to deliver more frequent reports and to follow instructions emanating from London or other headquarters. Of course, that is a characteristic of telegraphy in general, but its effects would have been felt first and most strongly in the pioneering UK system. Is it worth talking about this aspect? Kieve says, "The telegraph became the nervous system of industry and commerce, and influenced every aspect of life of the nation." Binksternet (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Public take-up" section is perhaps the place where an expansion of this sort could occur. The section's heading is rather opaque to an international audience. You might replace it with "Social effects", "Public reaction", "Public realisation", etc. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The quotes you provided are from the publisher's blurb, not the book itself, so should not be used as a source. Nevertheless, the desire to exert central control over the empire was undoubtedly a driver for the British Government. I will look into adding something if sources are available and it's not there already. But, the "Public take up" section is not the right place to do that. It's more connected with the All Red Line or the desperate need to connect to India. Edit: I've now added a couple of sentences, and a new source, to the "Ocean cables" section.
      • I've retitled "Public take up" to "Spread of public use". Is take up not understood in this sense in the US? It's not marked as specifically British in wikt:take-up sense #3. I've added a sentence to the section.
      • Sweeping, inflated claims like "influenced every aspect of life of the nation" are to be avoided, or at least treated with caution (and remember, this is publisher's blurb). Although this is long after Kieve, ever since the publication of The Victorian Internet there has been a tendency to exaggerate the telegraph with the Internet's characteristics. That analogy only goes so far. The telegraph brought important changes for business and government, but its social use by the public never reached the level of daily social chit-chat as seen on the internet. It was just too expensive for that. Somewhere in Kieve he gives booking opera tickets as an example of the spread of "everyday" use of the telegraph. That pretty much tells you that casual use of the telegraph did not penetrate down to the lower tiers of society. Ordinary people did use it, but only occassionally, for instance for special occassion greetings or to arrange visits. SpinningSpark 09:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Frankly, a sweeping statement is exactly what I think is proper. A general statement about the drastic reduction of local autonomy. You added the sentence "Colonial officials necessarily had a great deal of latitude for independent action due to the communication delay" but you did not emphasize the fact that the telegraph was putting an end to the "latitude". The wording you used was opaque in meaning. Binksternet (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Binksternet: Thanks for responding. I've had another go at this which I hope you might like better. I've still qualified the statement somewhat, as does the source:- "...these hopes (of the government) were not entirely fulfilled..." Nickles' book is entirely on the subject of the effect of the telegraph on diplomacy so it would be hard to find a more authoritative source. I read Kieve's book from cover to cover while I was writing this article. Happy to be shown wrong, but I don't remember him saying anything like the statement in the publisher's blurb you referred to. SpinningSpark 15:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • checkY I approve the article for FA status. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the All Red Line map
    • I don't agree that this needs scaling up. The representation is a crude simplification and the Red Line is heavily bolded. It is perfectly clear at the current size, and expanding will not reveal any further information.SpinningSpark 10:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current alt texts are not useful
    • One of the purposes of the alt text is to prevent screenreaders reading out the filename. If the image caption is sufficiently descriptive, then according to WP:ALT One solution is to provide something at least minimally useful such as |alt=photograph , |alt=painting, or |alt=sculpture. Please be specific on which images are deficient, if any. SpinningSpark 10:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That guidance is specifically for purely decorative images; I don't think any of the images here fall into that category. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • In that case we have a difference of opinion on what constitutes "purely decorative". For instance, the Childers image could be removed from the article without losing any relevant information. The caption already says who it is and when. There is no real need to add anything else. SpinningSpark 14:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:PSM_V03_D418_Single_needle_instrument.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Foster_magneto-electric_telegraph.png, File:John_Watkins_Brett.jpg, File:Jacob_Brett.jpg, File:All_Red_Line_(retouched).jpg, File:Rex_Whistler_-_St_Valentines_Day_Greetings_Telegram_1935.jpg
    • Done, although I'm not entirely sure why this is necessary. SpinningSpark 11:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both Commons and en.wp require images hosted as free to be free in the US; Commons additionally requires they be free in their country of origin. When and where was File:John_Watkins_Brett.jpg first published? Same with File:Jacob_Brett.jpg. Why is File:Rex_Whistler_-_St_Valentines_Day_Greetings_Telegram_1935.jpg believed to be free in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't say when these were first published, but an image of Jacob Brett that appears to be a head and shoulders crop of this image was published in Bright, The Life Story of the late Sir Charles Tilston Bright, 1899,[2] and in Bright, The Story of the Atlantic Cable, 1903,[3]. These were not my uploads, so the best I can do is write to the site the images were taken from. SpinningSpark 15:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Both images were donated to the IET archive by Latimer Clark in 1898 and I've added that information on their pages. SpinningSpark 22:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the telegram form is it not automatically PD in US if it has gone out of copyright in the country of origin through PD-70? By what mechanism could it still be in copyright? For this date, to be protected by copyright in the US the first place it would have to have been registered, renewed 28 years later, and (I think) marked as copyright (which this form isn't. In all probability it was never copyright in the US. SpinningSpark 15:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • See WP:NUSC. Had it gone out of copyright before the URAA date it most likely would be PD in the US, but 1944+70 would be after that. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's a ridiculous situation when an obsolete, out of copyright, British telegram form from the 1930s is still in copyright in a country where it was never used. So what's to be done about this one? SpinningSpark 22:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've replaced the image. SpinningSpark 13:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Lord_Kelvin_photograph.jpg: an image taken in the 1900s could very well have been taken by a photographer who died less than 70 years ago, plus this also needs a US PD tag
    • According to the Smithsonian information page for the image (now linked on the image page) it is copyright free. That page also says it was first published in Berlin, so I really don't see why PD-US is needed here. SpinningSpark 12:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • As above, Commons requires images be free in both the US and their country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I've added it, but I still don't really get the point. Yes, it has to be PD in the US, but for images of this age that is already covered by PD-Old. SpinningSpark 14:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • When/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I said above, the Smithsonian say it was first published in Berlin. They don't give a date, but they do declare it "No Copyright - United States". I've added that information in a PD-Because template. If a declaration from the Smithsonian isn't good enough, I don't see how I can be expected to do any better. SpinningSpark 21:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:William_Henry_Preece_-_Page's_Magazine.png: as previous, the photographer could well have died less than 70 years ago
    • The photographer was Ernest Walter Histed, died 1947, so out of copyright 2017 (assuming copyright wasn't assigned to the magazine, in which case it out of copyright 1972). SpinningSpark 12:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Hugh_Childers,_Lock_%26_Whitfield_woodburytype,_1876-83_crop.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

I'm adding this to the urgents list to hopefully get some reviews. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Laser brain[edit]

Hi Spinningspark, I began to review this today but didn't make it past the lead. Unfortunately I find the writing to be relatively dense and awkward in many places, and appearing to need a good round of revision with an eye toward cohesiveness and smoother narrative. Some random examples are below:

  • I can't parse the first sentence in the lead at all. What are you trying to convey? It reads as if "Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom" is the subject of the sentence and it had... what? I don't understand.
I don't quite understand what the problem is you are having with the lead sentence. It is explaining the importance of the topic, which goes beyond parochial concerns. Perhaps you could elaborate on the issue. SpinningSpark 14:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is distinct from the optical telegraphy" - I'm unsure what "it" is referring to here. Telegraphy or electrical telegraphy?
When the subject of a sentence is a pronoun, it is normally expected that it represents the subject of the previous sentence. The subject of that sentence is electrical telegrahy so the meaning is grammatically unambiguous. It is also logically unambiguous; optical telegraphy is a subset of telegraphy so the sentence could not possibly mean that telegraphy was distinct from optical telegraphy. We could write "electrical telegraphy" explicitly, but really, don't you think that is unnecessary repetition? And by the way, that kind of repetition was a big complaint of an earlier review, which led to these early sentences being structured the way they are. SpinningSpark 14:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cooke formed a company to exploit it" I'm curious about the word choice here. By exploit to you mean monetize? The word carries negative connotations.
This is a perfectly normal (and common) usage of exploit. The OED gives "[t]o make full use of; to derive benefit from" for this meaning. No negative connotation is meant, which would normally be applied to people (or possibly the environment), not ideas and inventions. SpinningSpark 15:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've now removed the passage altogether in response to the comment two down from here. SpinningSpark 15:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Important components were the needle telegraph instrument suggested by Wheatstone, the battery invented by John Frederic Daniell, and the relay invented by Edward Davy." This could be written in active voice to convey the message much more effectively.
I don't see how that can be put in active voice; there is no action verb to activate. "A component was the battery" is no more active than "the battery was a component". SpinningSpark 15:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking something like "The needle telegraph instrument suggested by Wheatstone, the battery invented by John Frederic Daniell, and the relay invented by Edward Davy were important components [possibly because...]" I don't really understand your resistance—it's better writing especially for ESL readers. I don't say "Red were the apple and the wagon" generally either. --Laser brain (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much resistance as failure to understand what you wanted. perhaps I don't properly understand what active voice is. Still not sure how this is an improvement, but done anyway. SpinningSpark 22:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1846 the Electric Telegraph Company (the Electric) was formed by Cooke" - same company referenced in the last para? Why repeat it (the lead is already long)?
Agreed and done, which incidentally removes the word exploit which you didn't like. SpinningSpark 15:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The company initially supplied telegraph systems to railway companies, but soon branched out into other businesses" - "Industries" is surely a better work than "businesses" here
I don't think so. I find it hard to think of the financial sector or newspapers as industries. They were rarely referred to as such historically, that's a modern contrivance. In any case, I don't see why "businesses" is problematic. SpinningSpark 16:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most telegraph companies were unprofitable except for the Electric and Magnetic." Awkward writing
Rephrased. SpinningSpark 16:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Once the cables were laid, these disparate companies were merged into the Eastern Telegraph Company, first established in 1872." Writing can be simplified by replacing phrases like "first established in" with just "in".
No, it can't be stated that way because it would not be true. The Eastern TC was formed in 1872, but the other companies were merged in at various dates as they completed their specific projects. The idea was that if a project failed to deliver its cable, then the company running it could be thrown to the wolves without bringing down the rest of the organisation. SpinningSpark 16:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The inland telegraph companies were nationalised in 1870 and then run" By run do you mean operated? Perhaps too colloquial.
Done, although I don't think run is colloquial in this context. SpinningSpark 16:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the estimated costs failed to take into account" The costs didn't fail to do anything... a person surely did.

I think this needs considerable improvement before it's ready to meet 1a. --Laser brain (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "estimated costs" to "cost estimates". SpinningSpark 16:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: I have responded to the specific points you raised. I hope you can see your way to continue reviewing. It would be greatly appreciated. SpinningSpark 16:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: Thanks for the responses—it doesn't sound like anything is a showstopper. I'll plan to continue leaving some notes in the next day or so. --Laser brain (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've just completed a readthrough and I have some minor notes that I'll post today or tomorrow, but there's hardly anything worth fussing over. I've changed to tentative support, as I'd like to read through one more time for cohesiveness. --Laser brain (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to support after another readthrough and some minor tweaks. --Laser brain (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More notes below. --Laser brain (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I began looking at the sources today. I focused on checking instances where a single citation is provided at the end of a paragraph to ensure it covers all of the text. Just checking a couple:

  • Fn 83 - close paraphrasing
    • Our text: "The Electric had tested the Hughes printing telegraph in 1858 but decided against using it."
    • Source text: "The Electric also tried the Hughes Type Printer in 1858 but did not use it."
      • I've rephrased it, but there are a limited number of ways such a short statement can be made, so it's inevitable that there will be some similarity. SpinningSpark 17:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 85 - fails verification. This whole para cites p. 64 of Kieve but I don't see that it supports the text.
    • There is an error in the page number. It should be page 69. SpinningSpark 17:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 86 - OK
  • Fn 87 - fails verification. The cited pages cover the profitability statement but I don't see anything about "a troublesome rooftop system to maintain".
    • I've removed the passage. The troublesomeness of the system is discussed elsewhere in the article. It was more susceptible to storm damage and malicious or accidental damage by the public. However, it's not worth finding cites, and you are right, Kieve does not discuss the financial impact of this. SpinningSpark 19:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 92 - fails verification. The cited page covers increased use but not "public started to use the telegraph for mundane everyday messages".
    • I've added an additional cite to cover that: "Telegraphic communcication of a domestic character steadily increased." (Kieve, p. 59). SpinningSpark 18:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately because of these spot-checks I'm revising my support above as this is a troubling sample. A lot more thorough inspection of the citations will be needed before this could be considered ready. --Laser brain (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, in a situation like this I'd expect the nominator to re-check all referencing in the article for possible issues such as those noted above, after which Andy or another reviewer can make another spotcheck and if that comes up clean then we're probably right to promote -- but given the time this has been open, the nominator's ref check would have to take place in fairly short order or else we'd be better off archiving. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: I think that's a bit harsh. None of the comments raised are real killers. Of the five cites checked one is marked ok (#86), one is due to a simple typo in the cite (#85), one alleges close paraphrasing (#83) which I don't really agree with as its just a short statement of fact (but I changed it anyway), one is a repeat of a claim that was already made (and cited) earlier in the article (was #92, now #93) and was just used as an introduction to another point. The final one (#87) is a true statement and is also cited elsewhere in the article, but was perhaps used in an inappropriate place. To my mind that was the only one that amounted to a substantive complaint. I'm doing my own random checks, but I know for sure that I have not written anything that is not in the sources (because I don't know anything that is not in the sources). SpinningSpark 15:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: I don't think it's fair for you to dismiss everything except one as not being substantive. They are citation errors, and they are not in line with the FA criteria. I don't allege that anything you've written is false or fabricated. But they have to be verifiable by the random reader and not just with your assistance. I don't have time to do a comprehensive review of all of your citations, so I would expect you do review your own work at this point and let me know when you believe it's ready for another spot-check. Pinging Ian Rose just for visibility. --Laser brain (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here - specifically FACs for 2020 World Snooker Championship and 1984 World Snooker Championship

  • I realise this is a long article, but WP:LEDE says the lead should be a maximum of four paragraphs, can we condense this a bit? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guideline says this is a general rule of thumb, not a hard rule. That indicates that exceptions can be made, and the great length of this article is surely grounds for an exception if anything ever was. A "paragraph" does not have a definite length, so reducing to four paragraphs does not in itself change the length of the lead. I'm happy to try and shorten it, but you need to say what you think has too much coverage. Five paragraphs works well with the structure of the article, covering the five major periods/developments. These are (1) early development, (2) commercial companies period, (3) nationalised industry period, (4) international submarine network, and (5) decline and rise of other technologies. I don't think any of those five should be removed entirely from the lead.
An alternative solution here is to split the article across two pages. It will divide fairly neatly into pre- and post-nationalisation. This will automatically result in a much reduced lead for both pages. But I would only be willing to do that if the FA coordinators were willing to continue with this nomination in that state. I don't want to have to start over with a new nomination. SpinningSpark 09:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not expecting a split, but obviously we want to keep the lede as condensed as possible; maybe something to think abut rather than something to worry about 14:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the lede sentence is either a candidate for removal of bold as the "Electrical telegraphy in United Kingdom had the world's first commerical..." doesn't read particularly well. The United Kingdom did. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I always think captions should be relatively readable without reading the whole article "Eastern Telegraph Company submarine cables, 1901" could be reworded to say exactly what the picture is of (a map of submarine cables from 1901 for the Eastern Telegraph Company) or similar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • decline. Decline - can we reword to avoid sentences ending and starting with the same word? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comes up so often in reviews that I usually just comply with it. But in this case I could not immediately see a way of doing it without butchering one sentence or the other, so I am just going to ask why is this considered a bad thing? Does our MoS (or anybody's MoS) prescribe it? It is a literary device called anadiplosis and I'm not seeing any writing guides saying not to use it. Just the opposite in fact,[4][5][6] they say it is used for emphasis and linking two clauses for logical flow. It has been used by such titans of literature as Shakespeare and Byron. SpinningSpark 10:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but they weren't writing an encylopedia in 2020. :P. I'm not sure we have a MOS about it, but I've never found it to be particularly easy to read. What about "The introduction of special greetings telegrams for birthdays and similar events in 1935 proved highly popular also countered the decline."? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done, although I still say this is a made up rule circulating amongst wikignomes which has no real basis. Even though I've changed it, I would still argue that it was superior before. Putting "decline" at the beginning of the second sentence immediately tells the reader what point the sentence is going to make and that it follows on from the previous sentence. Nothing needs to be held in temporary storage in order to parse what is going on. Your way the reader has to get all the way to the end of the second sentence before finding out what it is about and then has to refer back to the first sentence to make the connection. SpinningSpark 17:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the above I've had a look through the article and I can't see too much else worth not supporting, so I'm happy.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The prose is below FA standard. Here are some examples:

  • Passive voice The source of power he used was high-voltage friction machines.
  • This is awkward: despite the optical telegraph being frequently unusable due to weather conditions. It sounds like it needs a possessive "opticsl telegraph's being".
  • Redundancy Nearly all the telegraph systems that were finally successful used batteries of electrochemical cells as their source of power. What else can you use batteries for?
  • Passive voice An important development that made this possible was the invention of the Daniell cell in 1836 by John Frederic Daniell.
  • The chemistry does not make sense here The hydrogen is consumed by the sulfuric acid electrolyte, oxidizing it to water, before it can reach the copper electrode in the copper sulphate electrolyte. A later improvement by J. F. Fuller in 1853 replaced sulfuric acid with zinc sulfate.[4] I don't see how replacing an acid with a salt works. Can you explain this?
  • Passive voice to which are attached electrical contacts which close and complete a secondary circuit.
  • Passive voice again The person who was the driving force in establishing the telegraph as a business in the United Kingdom was William Fothergill Cooke. (William Fothergill was the driving force....).
  • Use of slang a serious falling out
  • You could use an appositive here This was an instrument patented by Charles Wheatstone in 1858. It was designed to be used by unskilled operators with no knowledge of telegraph codes. "Patented by Charles Wheatstone in 1858, the instrument was designed to be use by unskilled operators." (There is also redundancy).
  • Passive voice An early advocate of nationalisation was Thomas Allan in 1854.
  • Here The Post Office decided to standardise on the Morse telegraph system, which had been the international standard since 1865. How could it have been the international standard before it was standardised?
  • Here in the Lead, it should say it was the latex from the plant that was used, Suitable insulation for these was not available until the introduction of gutta-percha in 1843 by Scottish military surgeon William Montgomerie. The link is to the plant.

These are just examples. The article is a slog to read because of the verbosity. It is not written in summary style and it is too long. While appreciating the time and effort that has gone in to this interesting contribution, I don't think it's ready to be featured. Sorry. Graham Beards (talk) 10:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - I put this on the urgents list two months ago and it's not gotten any traction. I suggest taking it to Peer Review and working with LaserBrain and Graham Beards on their concerns so that hopefully the next try will be smoother. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Electrical_telegraphy_in_the_United_Kingdom/archive1&oldid=984232909"