Talk:Burt's solar compass

Other sun compasses
This article seems to be exclusively about Burt's sun compass. Others include, at least: Several are described in detail here: -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bagnold's sun compass
 * Cole Pattern Mk II sun compass
 * Mk III Howard sun compass

There is a British Army manual for use of their Sun Compass, apparently not online, though I hope to find a link at the Imperial War Museum archive.Aertex (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Review
See Talk:Solar compass/GA1 for comments regarding the article under its old name, 'Solar compass'. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Description of the instrument
Currently very confusing. I suggest splitting the section to first describe the principle of operation - how to point it at the sun so that it aligns with true north, and how the sights can then be used to fix a true direction from the set up point to any visible object.

Then explain how each component contributes to this functionality and the geometry and construction of that component, and how they all fit together.

Ping me when you think the description is comprehensible to an intelligent reader, who is not a surveyor or professional navigator (I am a mechanical engineer).

Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 13:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the hints on this, however I think it is a little over my head. I have arranged the paragraphs in an order that seems to make sense to me, however I don't know if it makes sense to a professional surveyor. Can you look it over and make any adjustments in my editing as you think necessary. Obviously you are better on this instrument than I am since I have never seen one. You have a better understanding of it and how it operates. Whatever you think necessary for editing is fine by me. Thanks for your help.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Eish! If I knew the instrument I would have had a go already. However the basic principles must follow spherical geometry so I will see if I can do something useful. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 16:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have made a start with a new subsection Burt's solar compass, stating the basic principle in as straightforward a way as I could manage at the time. Please look at what I have written, see if it makes sense to you, and tweak as you see fit to make it clearer if possible. If you want to explain it in more technical terms, go ahead, but I suggest we do that as a separate expanded/technical explanation for now. It may be worth considering later using the more detailed and technical description for the subsection and moving the simpler explanation to the lead. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 18:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Yes, it makes sense to me and a better job than I could have done. I'll let you continue at your own pace. Thanks for help. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have done a major rewrite of the section. splitting it into a subsection on principles of operation and the basic functional components, with a subsection on the specific structure of a typical production version. It can probably still benefit from a bit of trimming, merging and rationalisation, but I think first a bit of proofreading to make sure I have not perpetrated any major errors or omissions. A very simple device, well designed and suited for purpose. Obvious after the fact, as so many really good designs are. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 11:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will read it over after I get back from Wal-Mart shopping.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Excellent job. I removed my duplicate 1836 patent image and left yours in. Your wording is way better than I could have ever done. I am thinking about nominating it for Good Article, along with 3 other Burt articles. The other compass associated one is Equatorial sextant. If you have time can you take a look at it? Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am unable to find sufficient information to work out how the Equatorial sextant works. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 07:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that the changes I made to clarify the way the instrument works have been changed back to explanations that appear to be significantly less clear on how the instrument works. I do not see how this improves the article. I suggest that a third opinion be requested to decide which version is more likely to be understood by a reasonably competent reader. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 05:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

In the history you can see at, followed by (next above). Now you dont get from 27,936 to 25,713 by removing 3 bytes! But if you put 3 bytes back onto the 25,713, you get 25,716, which is the size of your last version before I started copyediting, so it looks like you opened the version of 14:12, 6 July 2020, made the copyedit and saved it. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 12:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what went wrong here. I do remember reading over your version you talk about above at 18:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC). To me it seems that I was quite satisfied with your work as I see I said: Your wording is way better than I could have ever done. PERHAPS sometime after that I changed your work back to my wording - I don't remember! The last I can recall now is that YOUR wording was much better than mine, as you have a better understanding of the instrument than I do. I remember at Revision as of 14:51, 7 July 2020 where I (Removed my duplicate image). I see then in the History that the Revision as of 20:59, 8 July 2020 I did a copy edit. PERHAPS here I may have accidently messed things up and rewrote YOUR wording that I remember I was happy with as of 15:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC). If I reverted back to Revision as of 14:51, 7 July 2020 would you be happy with that? As I look at it now, that appears to me to be good and a version I certainly can live with. I have no idea what went wrong, went wrong, went wrong. I certainly would like to go with YOUR wording on how the instrument works. Should I revert back to Revision as of 14:51, 7 July 2020 to be able to fix whatever it is that went wrong? I want to fix the issue to reflect YOUR wording on how the instrument words. You tell me what I should do -OR- you can write your wording on how the instrument works. Your version as of Revision as of 11:02, 7 July 2020 look good to me. All I want to do is remove my duplicate image, as I did in Revision as of 14:51, 7 July 2020 as you can see. Whatever went wrong, let's fix it. I'll go with what ever wording or Revision you want - that looks to me as I see it now. You have a much better understanding on the operations of the instrument than I do, so I would like to go with whatever wording YOU choose. I don't differ from your opinion on how the instrument works and would like to go with YOUR wording of whatever you would like as a description of how it works. What can we do along these lines to fix this situation? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , My best guess is you inadvertently copy edited an old version. Shit happens, and on Wikipedia is usually fixed quite easily. I suggest revert to the version which has the least work to clean up. possibly my your last version where you removed the duplicate, just before the wonky copyedit. As far as I know this will not affect the move. Either short description is fine, so don't worry about fixing it. I will take a look after you are done and see if it is good to go. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 12:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burt%27s_solar_compass&direction=next&oldid=966482977 &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 12:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * On looking closer, I am now fairly sure that is what happened.
 * I reverted back using the link above you provided. Will that work for you? Anything else I should do to resolve the issue? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , that looks fine to me. Looks fully resolved, though there might be some copy edits of value lost in the confusion. They are probably not worth the sweat of trying to reconstruct as they were done to an old version and may not be relevant any more. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 13:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Great. Looks good to me also. I have it in as GAN. The review probably won't happen for at least a month yet. The reviewer will probably pick up on any final tweaking required. I will solve those issues then, as it looks like at this point in time there is nothing more I should do. Thanks for your help on this to resolve the issue (that it looks like I did inadvertently).--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Feel free to ping me when you get a reviewer. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 14:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks! --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Iron ore deposits
The article brings up the magnetic compass accuracy issue (caused by iron ore deposits) way too many times. It is mentioned in the lead, brought up three times in the History section, and mentioned again in two later sections. I didn't know which ones would be the best to trim, so I am just bringing up the issue here. Thanks. Larry Hockett (Talk) 08:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Issue addressed. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think maybe I wasn't so clear. The issue is not the use of any specific word. It's that the same topic - the superiority of this device because it was free from interference from iron ore deposits - is mentioned in five or six places in this article. Larry Hockett (Talk) 10:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment
This article is part of 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 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)