Talk:British and Irish Magnetic Telegraph Company/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 04:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this one on. Looks interesting! Amitchell125 (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. Iook forward to seeing your comments. SpinningSpark 08:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

Lead section[edit]

  • The lead section is rather too short to be a concise overview of the text in the article.that can stand alone, as stated in MOS:LEAD.
  • Britain and United Kingdom in the same paragraph - stick to UK.
  • link electromagnetically {Electromagnetism); telegraph operators (Telegraphist)
  • (Magnetic Telegraph Company or just Magnetic for short) - change to '(also called the Magnetic Telegraph Company or the Magnetic).
  • other companies - should read 'other telegraph companies'.
  • on that island - replace with 'there'.
  • instead the operator generated the necessary power electromagnetically - see comment below in 'Telegraph System' regarding the physics involved.
  • This has been expanded as part of the general lead expansion. SpinningSpark 14:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Company history[edit]

  • William Fothergill Cooke - amend text to read 'Sir William Fothergill Cooke'.
  • MOS:HONORIFICS does not prescribe this, and imo the use of them goes against the Wikipedia principle of neutrality. Besides which, Cooke was not knighted at this time. SpinningSpark 15:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Noted.
  • ("the Electric" for short) and (the District) - remove quote marks and italics.
  • virtually a cartel in Britain - why virtually?
  • Short answer, because that's what the source says. Long answer, as far as I know, there was no formal agreement between the two until 1865 when they entered into a price fixing agreement, along with the UKTC. But they were clearly closely working together to suppress other companies long before this. SpinningSpark 15:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kieve - Kieve is not listed in the Bibliography section.
Done SpinningSpark 15:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Telegraph system[edit]

  • Done, although shareholder is borderline OVERLINK imo. SpinningSpark 10:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • invented by William Thomas Henley and George Foster - add 'in 1848' (use this as a reference).
  • Done, but...I prefer not to use unattributed museum descriptions as sources, even from one with the stature of the Science Museum (if it is written by a known expert that's different). In my experience museum labels are frequently misleading, or even downright wrong. In this case we don't need to as Schaffner has the same information. Note that the museum page is already in the see also section. SpinningSpark 10:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current was generated by the operator pressing pedal keys... - this alone is an inadequate explanation of how the current was generated to deflect the needle. Without the use of a battery, an electromagnet requires a current produced by induction (nowadays, for us, this induced current would comes from the mains). The article you provided from Nature in the Talk page actually says this, hidden within the text: "This magnetic needle is deflected in one direction for any length of time required (,) by an induced magneto-current...." I suggest you need to say little more than to explain that the machine worked using an induced current produced by the operator, quoting/citing the article.
  • The second paragraph lacks sufficient citations, and looks like WP:OR at present.
  • Oh please, don't throw WP:OR in my face unless you genuinely believe something might not belong in the article. I Know perfectly well what it says, and uncited is not the same as OR at all. Presumably, you are talking about identifying intersymbol interference as the problem. This is not OR, it is a well known phenomenon and it is well known (now) that this was the problem with the transatlantic cable. I'll find a source on that. If you were talking about something else, please be specific. SpinningSpark 10:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The citations would be appreciated - many thanks. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The effect is explained over ten pages, but the connection with early telegraph cables is in the footnote on page 311. SpinningSpark 13:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Telegraph network[edit]

  • I don't see the problem with this. Newall & Co is notable and potentially will get an article. The fact that it currently redirects to a closely related page is no reason to make such a clunky link, which will only have to be reverted later. It fills the same role as a redlink. SpinningSpark 15:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As Newall's article is so small, I can concur with your point. I suggest Hemp#Cordage is used as a link for hemp rope (as using 'Search Wikipedia' takes you there). Amitchell125 (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link: copper; HMS Prospero (1837) (which produce a red link); lead; schooner; tugs (Tugboat); sea currents (Ocean current); English Channel; canals; evaporating; porous
  • I haven't done this yet, but I think a lot of them go against WP:OVERLINK; Everyday words understood by most readers in context are not usually linked. SpinningSpark 15:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A reader unfamiliar with boats and the sea would find the watery links useful (perhaps not canals), and the metallic/scientific terms, although commonly understood by most readers, are discussed in some depth in their own articles, and so are imo useful links to include in an article with a technological 'lean'. However, following WP:OVERLINK's advice not to link 'the names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar', I would agree with you, but still say to link schooner, English Channel , sea currents (a potentially confusing term, considering what is discussed elsewhere in the text) and porous. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with that. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a go at at least a stub on Prospero. Davidships (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • move 'Irish Sea' link from the 3rd to the 1st paragraph.
  • the route London–Birmingham–Manchester–Glasgow–Carlisle - there should a single link for the route, or no link. The individual cities should not be linked here. The same applies to Portrush–Sligo–Galway–Limerick–Tralee–Cape Clear.
  • On what guideline is that requirement based? A reader may be trying to plot or imagine the route. Linking at least to the less well known places is helpful. SpinningSpark 15:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Follow the route? As you wish, but 'London' is not linked. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is linked in the route. Or do you mean not linked in a previous occurence? London would not normally be linked per OVERLINK, but in a route list I think we have to do it for completeness and consistency. SpinningSpark 13:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use Template:Convert for fathoms.
  • Wires on poles do not need to be electrically insulated (although they may have a protective coating). This is not so with underground lines. These must be insulated from the ground and from each other. The insulation must also be waterproof. When Wheen discusses the issues mentioned here, he does it in the context of problems encountered in the nineteenth century. Should not the text here not do the same thing?
  • This is as true now as it was in the 19th century (although individual conductors (as opposed to multi-conductor cables) are mostly the preserve of electrical power distribution nowadays). SpinningSpark 15:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, however the text would be better reading something like, 'Telegraph pioneers found that when burying wires, it was essential to prevent conduction both through to the ground and to each other. They were not able to produce a insulating materials that worked well enough, but in time solved the problem by suspending bare wires on poles.'. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really historically accurate. By the time of the founding of the Magnetic, the pioneering period was well and truly over by several decades. Wires on poles had already been established as the norm by the likes of Morse and Cooke. Cooke actually had a patent for a wires-on-poles system, but the Electric didn't try to claim rights to the telegraph pole per se as far as I know (but they were in court with rivals a lot, so who knows). The Magnetic went to underground cables, not because they didn't know about suspending telegraph wires, but because that was the only thing they could get wayleaves for in Britain. In Ireland, they could get wayleaves, but still persisted with buried cables, probably simply because that was what they were now familiar with and were tooled up to do. The material they used, gutta-percha, absolutely did "work well enough" for the purposes of establishing a telegraph network. Otherwise, the Magnetic would never have got to be the no. 2 company. SpinningSpark 14:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Spinningspark. Page 83 in Wheen, appears to me to infer that the problems of underground cabling remained unresolved until the 1890s. I bow to your greater understanding. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1890 is long after the Magnetic ceased to exist. The cable Wheen is describing is made waterproof with a lead sheath, not with improved insulation. The insulation used was waxed paper which would not keep water out for very long if submerged wtihout the sheath. I was still coming across this type of cable in old buildings in the 1980s. As I said, gutta-percha had its problems, but the Magnetic got it to work, as did other companies over distances of thousands of miles in the sea. As the article says, better insulation did not come until the 1930s. SpinningSpark 17:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic cable[edit]

Social issues[edit]

  • The text should be written out in full as 'words per minute', and not abbreviated to wpm.
The link is fine.
  • link telegraph operators (evening though it will already be linked in the lead section)

Links all checked. No issues with images, plagiarism, stability, neutral stance or presence of original research. I will continue working on the review to this decent article tomorrow. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Fothergill Cooke founded his company in 1846, but was not knighted until 1869.Davidships (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Davidships. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography[edit]

  • I have looked for the information about the magneto-electric battery, in Catalogue of the Special Loan Collection of Scientific Apparatus at the South Kensington Museum, p. 205, as cited (presumably this), but it only comes up with exhibits relating to photography. Can you help? Amitchell125 (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit baffled by that page number. I don't recall where I found the document now, and it is unusual that I did not put in a link. The relevant items in your link are on page 301 at items 1519 and 1520. Items 1521 to 1525 on the next page are also relevant to this company, but not directly referred to in our article. My recollection was that the catalogue contained illustrations, but I guess not. I'll change the page number in the cite and link it. SpinningSpark 13:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Spinningspark, that's helpful. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have unfortunately felt the need to bulk revert your edit to the bibliography. I started to go through it amending the parts I felt had gone out of "article style" but very quicky got bogged down, so sorry about that. Some of the problems are: I don't think that we should link to gbooks where full view is not provided. Access is highly dependent on region and context. It is frequently the case that pages one finds with a search are not visible to other readers accessing through a link or "search inside". The ISBN link gets the reader to gbooks as well as to WorldCat if they want to borrow it in a library or Amazon if they want to buy it and numerous other sources. Books that are modern reprints of historic works should not link to archive copies of the original. There is no guarantee that the pagination is the same and they may have been edited. The edition actually used to build the article should always be used. At least one link to archive.org was changed to another copy which, although the same date was patently not the one I used since the illustration plates were different at least. A number of changes to volume and chapter formatting, which although minor, then forces me to comply with the change for any future additions or else end up with an inconsistent style. SpinningSpark 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would consider amending the Wheen source by including the Internet Archive url and amending the year from 2010 to 2011. When I checked the references I found it on the right page. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Passing[edit]

All sorted. Thanks for producing a great article, passing now. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_and_Irish_Magnetic_Telegraph_Company/GA1&oldid=915178425"