Talk:Catenary/GA1

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

Reviewer: Failedwizard (talk · contribs) 16:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

User:RDBury responses and comments
I'm just going to add comments and updates here as I address the various points given above.
 * 1a (bullet 1): I went through and added a bunch of wikilinks for terms that could be called technical or jargon, I've probably missed some so I'll keep an eye out or make another pass sometime. The link for 'posthumous' didn't go to a definition (as you might think) but to a general list of posthumous works. I'm guessing someone thought it was a good idea to link every occurrence of 'postumous' in WP to this list. I removed it for now. It's probably only natural that the links get more sparse lower down since the end of the article is aimed at a more technical audience. I'm assuming that anyone who's interested in the derivations has working knowledge of freshman calculus and enough physics to construct a force diagram. Some of the terms used, such as tangential angle, aren't always covered in a standard curriculum so I've tried to give explanations for these both in-text and in wikilinks. The last section uses terminology from sophomore level mathematics but I think that's unavoidable.
 * I like it, looks much better now, and I've marked off the relevant point in the list :) Failedwizard (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 1a (bullet 2): I couldn't decide whether it should be plural or not so I just rephrased the issue out of existence.--RDBury (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * marked offFailedwizard (talk) 07:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 1a (bullet 3): See the comment under 3b. I tried to keep mathematical formulas and jargon out of the material above the 'Mathematical description' section. Starting there the math does start to come in thick and fast, but I don't think this can be helped. The most basic equation for the curved involves the hyperbolic cosine which probably isn't familiar to a random person on the street. An article like this should serve both non-technical and technical readers and the bottom half of the article is targeted at the latter.


 * 1a (bullet 4): This looks tough and probably the best approach is to break up the section. Right now it's sort of a collection point for bits and pieces that don't seem to belong anywhere else, not the kind of thing where you can apply a quick fix. I'll continue working on it.


 * 1a (bullet 5): I rephrased this to make it more clear what this was referring to.
 * marked off Failedwizard (talk) 07:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 1b: I rearranged and rephrased the lead so it should be clearer conform to WP:LEAD better. I also tried to put the more technical terminology in the second paragraph.


 * 2a: On ref 54 (now 55), the previous cite (Routh) is intended to be for the entire section and the note on Freeman is in the nature of a footnote pointing the reader to further information on suspension bridges. The Freeman article is a primary source and I didn't think there was anything of general enough interest to include in WP. Theoretically it could be separated out into a separate 'Footnotes' section but I think it's the only one so I don't see how that would make sense.
 * It's a tough call and I understand what's happening here - but I think we're in a situation in which we don't want to 'overload' the references with a random footnote - if it could be worded (in brackets maybe) in article that would be much easier on the eye.


 * 2a: On using "Following...": This is a way to indicate that the section or paragraph is being paraphrased from the source given rather that individual facts being cited. It would be impractical to have cites for every statement in a proof or derivation since they would all have the same information. Also, proof or derivation needs to be taken as a single unit, so it wouldn't make sense to cite individual statements anyway. I've been using the word "Following" in this situation because, as far as I know, the scientific citation guidelines aren't specific on how this should be done. If there are guidelines for this then I'll be glad to change the cites to conform to them.
 * Hmmm, I can see a few ways of doing it, but we're talking very much personal preferences - I've asked over at the manual of style would you be happy with going with their recommendations, assuming they have any)? (don't worry about time on this one)
 * So we didn't get much of a response from MOS, so you're good for 'following' :) Failedwizard (talk) 07:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 2a: On using "Art.": Routh, in particular, is organized into chapters and articles rather than chapters and sections. Routh use article numbers rather than page numbers when referring to passages in the book and article numbers and shown in the table of contents and at the top of each page. Generally articles are shorter than a page so using an article number is more specific than a page number. So I'm following the format used in the work being referenced for the location of a specific passage and I believe it's the most appropriate format more these cites.
 * I think we can agree that 'Article' might more descriptive than 'Art.'.. :) Also, you might like to consider linking the footnotes to the references like at Speech_generating_device, which makes things a bit easier for people to find. Failedwizard (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I added intra-article links to the cites. Art. seems to be a standard abbreviation for Article; it's more or less the same as using § for Section.--RDBury (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 2b: I removed the statement given the first bullet. Statements beginning with "It's possible" or "Possibly" are difficult to falsify anyway. On the second bullet, I believe the Lindahall.org cite is meant to cover the entire paragraph so the statement should be cited already. I'm not entirely happy with the source though and will try to find a better one. The statement in the third bullet is meant to summarize and introduce the material that follows, in other words it's just there to improve the flow of the section. As such I don't think it needs a cite.


 * 2c: The Fahie cite is supposed to cover both sentences; I could easily combine them into a single sentence if it would help. Fahie is public domain so it shouldn't be too hard to add a link to it as well. This is a case where you could probably find as many if not more cites for the false version than the true one. Turns out the people who review math manuscripts for publications may be good at checking proofs and formulas but aren't so hot at following up sources on who said what (imo).
 * Not just math(s)... Anyway, I think you have a couple of options here - easist is probably just cite Fahie seperately for both sentances - that way it's a bit clearer that the statements are all coming from the same source.  More elegant, might be to say "A careful reading of Galileo's book Two New Sciences, by Fahie shows this to be an oversimplification. (also you don't have to cite Galileo - although I'm aware it's nice to do so - it's the placement of the citations here that's giving the slightly OR feel... Failedwizard (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I rephrased the passage as a single sentence, it was a bit wordy as it was anyway.--RDBury (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 3b: I think the alternative derivation is encyclopedic though I can see how it might seem redundant. Perhaps it doesn't come through in the article very well but while the first method considers the problem as one of finding a function of x, the second method is one of finding more general curves in the plane. In any case I think the two approaches are significantly different and when you try to adapt them to other problems (which is why I think the derivations have value in an encyclopedia), one works in some situations and the other one works in different situations.
 * I'm happy for this to be your call - but I think it would really help to have quite a bit more text spacing out the equations...
 * I went though and added text between the equations as much as I thought made sense. I also broke up a giant string of equations in the elastic catenary section. The derivation of this given in Encyclopédie des Formes Mathématiques Remarquables is more polished but it's unclear if it's a reliable (per WP) source.--RDBury (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 6b: I didn't think anyone would say there were too many images. Actually one of my favorite things about the article is that it has pictures of things that are outdoors rather than just having a bunch of equations and blackboard diagrams. I can't take the credit (or blame) though; as far as I recall the only one I added was one of the blackboard type images.
 * I added something on Ctesiphon to the History section and added a ref. There is a cite on the Taq-i Kisra article which might be better but it's "No Preview" on Google books.
 * Very happy with the changes made and I've marked it off on the table.Failedwizard (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * So I just dropped by to see how you were getting on - there's been a nice number of edits and some well-reasoned and friendly responses, I particularly like that you're taking the time to edit many parts of the article and not just respond very tightly to suggestions. Let me know how you're doing regarding things like time, and if an extension might reflect well on the quality of the article. Failedwizard (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Some great work here, I've marked some more stuff off - the lede is the major thing that needs doing - much of the rest I can probably tidy up as I go past, but the lede is the major thing...Failedwizard (talk) 07:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did work on the lead and I'm not sure what else should be done with it. It seems to me it covers the points in WP:MOSMATH and I don't see to expand it further without adding unneeded detail.--RDBury (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My issue is that the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article, currently the lead doesn't mention any points from Catenary, Catenary, or Catenary, and actually could take a summary sentence from each of the more theory heavy sections.  The lead should also establish notability, a clause like, "and have been studied by mathamatitions such as Galileo, Hook, and..." would sort that that.  Does that sound sensible? Failedwizard (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of sentences to the lead. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)