Talk:British and Irish Magnetic Telegraph Company/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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

I'll take this one on. Looks interesting! Amitchell125 (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing. Iook forward to seeing your comments. SpinningSpark 08:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Lead section

 * 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.
 * Done SpinningSpark 14:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Britain and United Kingdom in the same paragraph - stick to UK.
 * Done SpinningSpark 14:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * link electromagnetically {Electromagnetism); telegraph operators (Telegraphist)
 * Electromagnetic induction is a more relevant link, otherwise done. SpinningSpark 14:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * (Magnetic Telegraph Company or just Magnetic for short) - change to '(also called the Magnetic Telegraph Company or the Magnetic).
 * Done <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * other companies - should read 'other telegraph companies'.
 * Done <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * on that island - replace with 'there'.
 * Done <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Company history

 * 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. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 15:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Noted.
 * link: Liverpool; telegram (Telegraphy); nationalised (even though it is already linked in the lead section}; wound up (Liquidation)
 * Done <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 15:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ("the Electric" for short) and (the District) - remove quote marks and italics.
 * Done, I was treating this construction as WP:Words as words, although admittedly, I haven't been consistent. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 15:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 15:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Kieve - Kieve is not listed in the Bibliography section.
 * Done <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 15:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Telegraph system

 * Link to dispersion - the link goes to the article on optical dispersion, the nearest correct article to use is Dispersion relation.
 * Done <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 21:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * link: electromagnetically and batteries (Electric battery), even though they already linked in the lead section; current (Electric current); shareholders
 * Done, although shareholder is borderline OVERLINK imo. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 10:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 10:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * Done <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 12:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 10:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The citations would be appreciated - many thanks. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. The effect is explained over ten pages, but the connection with early telegraph cables is in the footnote on page 311. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 13:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 2,000 miles - use Template:Convert to give the distance in both miles and km.

Telegraph network

 * t he link: R. S. Newall and Company takes you to Robert Stirling Newall ; similarly hemp rope leads to Hemp. Amend to 'R. S. Newall and Company' and 'hemp rope'.
 * 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. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 15:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As Newall's article is so small, I can concur with your point. I suggest Hemp is used as a link for hemp rope (as using 'Search Wikipedia' takes you there). Amitchell125 (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 15:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Done schooner. I'm happy to redlink Prospero as well if user:Davidships or user:Lyndaship confirm that it might be notable (it is redlinked at HMS Prospero). <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 13:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy with that. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll have a go at at least a stub on Prospero. Davidships (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 15:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Follow the route? As you wish, but 'London' is not linked. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 13:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 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). <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 15:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 17:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Social issues

 * 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)


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

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