Talk:Daniel Davis Jr.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Daniel Davis, Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060826020507/http://www.melbournephoto.org.au:80/alanelliottmcc.html to http://www.melbournephoto.org.au/alanelliottmcc.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Gold plating

• ... that Daniel Davis was the first person in America who did electro gold plating (illustrated) and electro silver plating as a business? Source: History of the town of Princeton by Francis Everett Blake (1915), p. 298 Mr. Davis was also the first man in this country who did electro gold and silver plating, and taught the art.

5x expanded by Doug Coldwell (talk). Self-nominated at 11:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC).

• Reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Convent of Santo Domingo (Valencia)
• 5 X expansion verified. New enough, long enough. Hook is interesting and supported by reliable sources. Free of copyright violations and close paraphrasing. QPQ verified. Picture is clear at 100 pix, and free to use on main page. However, picture does not appear in this article? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Added picture to article.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Fixed.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment to Promoter - Could this be put into the #1 slot with picture. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Daniel Davis Jr./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 21:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources are reliable.

• The file page for File:Daniel Davis Jr c1870.jpg does not give a source URL, so I can't check when it was published. Do you know where you obtained it from?

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• That gives a 2021 article as the publication. The article itself might cite an original publication, but I don't have access to it so I can't tell. If you have access to the article, can you see what source is cited for the picture? If you don't I think we need to upload the image locally on en-wiki and treat it as fair use.
•  Done - Fair Use image provided. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• "He came from a family of a mechanical background education": this makes no sense -- do you mean he had a mechanical background via his education, or that his family did? Presumably only his father?

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• "Davis was soon employed by King to install these lightning rods manufactured": should this be something like "to install the lightning rods King manufactured"?

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• "As a philosophical instrument maker": what does this mean? Ditto for "It was the first catalogue published on philosophical instruments"; should the link go to natural philosophy?

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• "This puzzled them for some time, until they learned that the picture rendered, being on a darkened surface, was a reversed image." It's not because it's on a darkened surface that it was a reversed image.

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• Why give the long name of his book twice, only slightly changed, in the main text? If you want to mention the name change a footnote seems sufficient; the name is so long that repeating it is distracting.

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• "Davis was the first manufacturer of educational electromagnetic implements in the United States that were produced as a result of his manual." I don't think you can mean what this actually says. It says the book led to manufacturing, and Davis was the first person the book led to manufacturing. In fact the book didn't cause him to manufacture instruments; he was already manufacturing them. And if this is a reference to his being the first person to make these instruments in the US, we've already said that earlier in the article.

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• The start of the "Davis's Manual..." section repeats a couple of things: "It was the first American textbook on electricity" followed by "adopted by several colleges and high schools, becoming the first reference book on electromagnetism".

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• "Many trained electricians confess that they have learned their skills from Davis's manual": Needs a date for this assertion; presumably it hasn't been true for well over a hundred years, and the present tense of "confess" is misleading.

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• More repetition: the first paragraph of "Electromagnetic devices for medical purposes" could be cut by a third at least without losing any information -- e.g. we have "electric sparks and shocks could be used for medical purposes. These were produced by high voltages through medical devices that he made...a high voltage would be produced as an end result.. [he constructed] electromagnetic devices that would turn low voltage into high voltage that would produce an electrical shock...the electromagnetic device [would provide] a resulting high voltage that would produce sparks and shocks", all in a single paragraph.

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• "In the figure, the letter S is the south pole": it's not clear which image this refers to.

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• "Whenever the legs of the armature approach or recede from the poles of the strong permanent magnet they acquire or lose magnetism and according to such time electrical currents are generated in the coils of wire. This electricity passes by another coil and intermittently broken by the revolution of the hand wheel mechanism. This collapsing and building of magnetic fields between the coils produces a high voltage shock to the medical experimenter." "such time electrical currents"? "passes by another coil and intermittently broken"? And it's not necessarily the experimenter who will receive a shock, is it?

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

  Still need to clarify what is meant by "such time electrical currents" and "passes by another coil and intermittently broken". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• Sure. I happen to be an electrical engineering technician and understand things like this well, so I believe I can explain this to you. There is a relationship between magnetism and electricity. It's sort of like they are cousins and have common grandparents. When a magnetic field crosses a coil of wire then electricity is produced out of this coil of wire. This is how all electric generators work. Now going onto the next to last sentence in this paragraph it is explaining that the first coil of wire is next to the second coil of wire. A coil of wire with electricity going through it produces magnetism so this magnetism field is felt by the second coil of wire. The hand wheel mechanism when turned breaks contacts of the first coil of wire, breaking the electricity going through the coil. That then causes a collapse of the magnetic field and that collapsing field of magnetism crosses the second coil of wire (that is nearby) causing electricity of a much higher voltage to come out of this second coil of wire. THEN a further crank of the hand wheel mechanism makes contact of the first coil of wire causing electricity to flow again making the magnetic field rise again. This rising field of magnetism crosses the second coil and a high voltage electricity comes out of this second coil of wire. That's how all electrical transformers work and is the reason we have 60 cycle electricity. The electricity collapses and rises 60 times a second and therefore electrical voltages can be increased or decreased through a transformer (depending on how many coils in each set of the two coils). And that is basic electricity 101. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• "This then is electrified with a current and then being deposited on a battery plate of opposite charge": doesn't make sense as written -- "This" refers to the original object, from the previous sentence.

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• The metallic solution can flow electricity through it. When a negative charge is flowed through the metallic solution, that solution is attracted to the positive charged plate and deposited. That deposit of this solution is in exact proportions of the original object being copied (coin, award medal). That is what I explained in the first paragraph of Electrotype copying process.

• How is electrotyping of a daguerrotype possible? The surface of a daguerreotype is chemically differentiated per the image, but it's flat physically -- the process for electrotyping you describe starts with a mold. That would destroy a daguerreotype.

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• Why is there a section on galvanometers? He didn't invent them.

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The article could use a top to bottom copyedit. I'm not going to fail this, but it's a borderline fail; failing it would be a pity because of the long wait for GANs to get reviewed -- if this were newly nominated I would almost certainly fail it. Your research is good and thorough, and you understand your topics well, but you're not fluent at explaining them. Have you considered trying to find a copyeditor to work with prior to nominating at GAN? I think it would make your GANs go a lot more smoothly (and might incline reviewers to pick them up for review more quickly). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for review. I'll get started on the issues.--Doug Coldwell (talk)
• @Mike Christie: All issues have been addressed. Can You take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

  Two points left above; once those are addressed I'll read through again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• @Mike Christie: Additional issues addressed. Picture uploaded as Fair Use. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Both the fixes look good; passing. Thanks for the explanation of the mechanism! It was really the syntax that I was complaining about, but your explanation helped me visualize it a little better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:18, 21 August 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)

Copyright problem removed

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)