Talk:Daniel Davis Jr./GA1

GA Review
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?
 * ✅ --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.
 * ✅ - 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?
 * ✅ --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"?
 * ✅ --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?
 * ✅ --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.
 * ✅ --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.
 * ✅ --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.
 * ✅ --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".
 * ✅ --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.
 * ✅ --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.
 * ✅ --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.
 * ✅ --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?
 * ✅ --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.
 * ✅ --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.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Why is there a section on galvanometers? He didn't invent them.
 * ✅ --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)
 * 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)
 * 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)