Talk:Dresden Codex/GA1

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

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 23:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Writing quality and layout:
 * The writing quality is generally clear, neutrally worded, and grammatical.
 * ✅ - 12 Nov 2016


 * The word "codex" is sufficiently uncommon that I think it needs an explanation somewhere.
 * ✅ - 12 Nov 2016


 * The sentence "The specific numen references have to do with a 260-day ritual cycle divided up in several ways." is both vague ("have to do with", "several") and unclear (what do "numen" and "references" mean in this context?).
 * ✅ - 12 Nov 2016


 * The lead does not serve as an accurate summary of the rest of the article (MOS:LEAD). Many claims here (date, copy of an earlier text, oldest New World book, one of only 15 survivors, current location, significance in decoding Mayan) are not elaborated in later sections. And conversely, some later material (its post-Cortes history, astronomical tables, and the entire page numbering section) are not summarized in the lead section.
 * ✅ Made a complete new lead. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

2. Verifiability:
 * I had to take many of the sources in good faith as they are offline books, and often not in English. (This is not a problem, though; such sources are entirely acceptable. It merely means that some potential problems are unlikely to be uncovered by this review.)
 * The sources all appear to be reliable.
 * The formatting of the sources is inconsistent. Some appear to be in Citation style 1 as produced by the cite book etc template series, some in Citation style 2 as produced by citation, and some a mix of both. It is also unclear what criterion was used to decide between putting the entire source in a footnote, or using an abbreviated reference to a source in the Bibliography.
 * ✅ Section complete. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Some claims and some whole paragraphs are unsourced (at least, the claims appear after the last footnote in their paragraph). These include:
 * "How it came to Vienna..." = ✅ - referenced. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "In 1835, the codex was placed..." = ✅ - removed. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Knorozov's work was based..." = ✅ - removed. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "some of the pages were returned..." = ✅ - removed. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Each sheet measures..." = ✅ reworked accordingly with reference. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "They all had their own particular..." = ✅ - referenced.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Most of them refer to the accompanying..." = ✅ - referenced.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Today's page numbers were assigned..." = ✅ - referenced. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Section complete. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Reference [5] (https://www.wdl.org/en/item/11621/) is online, and heavily used as a source (despite being so short), so I could check its claims more carefully. I found the following issues:
 * "exhibited in two parts": not in the source. = ✅ - removed. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "It was described, at the time of its acquisition, as a "Mexican book."": The quoted text should be extended to also include the words "as a", as they are copied from this source, and also because as formatted it is ambiguous whether the quoted text copies from the source (as it does) or only from the earlier description. More problematically, the source doesn't say when this description was applied, so the "at the time of its acquisition" part is unsourced. = ✅ - copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Between 1880 and 1900": not in source. ✅ - copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "covered with a lime paste": not in source (unless somehow chalk=lime). ✅ corrected spelling to "chalk" paste. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "sometimes called leporello": not in source. ✅ Removed. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "overall length of 3.56 metres": source says 3.58. ✅ Von Hagen source says 12.5 feet.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "includes instructions concerning new-year ceremonies as well as descriptions of the Rain God's locations": uncomfortably close to the source phrasing, "instructions relating to new-year ceremonies, and descriptions of the locations of the Rain God". ✅ Copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Section complete. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Earwig's copyvio detector found some pages that had copied from us, but no problems of copied text from elsewhere.
 * ✅ O.K. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Entries by Thompson and Van Stone in the Bibliography appear not to actually be used as sources.
 * ✅ Moved to Further Reading section. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The Bibliography looks like it was intended to be alphabetized but it is not actually alphabetical.
 * ✅ Alphabetized --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

3. Broadness of coverage without unnecessary detail: no issues found. The description is detailed, but I think the detail is appropriate.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk)

4. Neutral, due weight, without editorial bias: no issues found.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

5. Stable: yes.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

6. Illustrations:
 * The images are appropriate to include and the captions mostly informative. However, "his latest book" is unclear and should be revised for clarity.
 * ✅ reworded and provided link to his Atlas ("his latest book"). --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The only image with any possible copyright issues is the one depicting the exhibit at the museum, and it appears to be properly licensed.
 * ✅ checked.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "The complete Dresden Codex" is properly formatted using a wide image template.
 * ✅ checked. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Except for the wide image, image sizing is done using relative sizes (upright parameter), not absolute numbers of pixels, as MOS:IMGSIZE requests.
 * ✅ checked and corrected as necessary. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This looks on-track to GA, but has some issues that still need to be addressed. Can you handle them, please? If you need extra time for this I can put the nomination on hold. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will need some extra time on this. Thanks. I will address the issues as soon as I can.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - addressed all issues. Ready for a re-review.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Second reading
The article has been significantly edited and many of my previous suggestions addressed but I am not convinced that the overall quality is much improved. I now have significantly more concerns with the writing, sourcing quality, and even copied phrasing from the sources than I did before.

1. Writing quality: - ✅ = copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "also known as the Codex Dresdensis"..."sometimes known as Codex Dresdensis": this is just a Latin version of the phrase "Dresden codex". Why does it have any more significance than, say, the Spanish version "Códice de Dresde" etc? How does adding this translation meet MOS:FORLANG? - ✅ = copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In "The Mexican book", "Mexican" needs disambiguation. Also, what is it even supposed to mean here? It is not about the nation of Mexico (established much later), nor the Mexican people (when we already have a much more specific group of people named in the previous section). And the grammar makes me think that Mexican is being used to distinguish it from some other book, rather than as a description of the already-named book. - ✅ = copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The lead now reasonably reflects the rest of the article, per MOS:LEAD - ✅ = copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * From the previous review, "The word "codex" is sufficiently uncommon that I think it needs an explanation somewhere" was marked as done, but I still see no such explanation. = copy edited accordingly and expanded to point out it is writings of the indigenous people of the Yucatán Peninsula. - ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "eight inches wide with an overall length of twelve and a half feet": please use the convert template to provide metric as well as imperial units. ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * All but the first sentence of the first paragraph of the "Description" section is about the history and significance of this object, not its physical description, and is off-topic for the section. - ✅ = copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "the first book written in the Americas": this is directly contradicted by the previous sentence that suggests that it is a copy of an earlier book. Perhaps it is the oldest *surviving* book? But that would require a more detailed comparison with the other three. - ✅ = copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "The authentic Maya codex is one of four of the Yucatan Maya civilization of Chichén Itzá": one of four what? Also, what is the point of calling it authentic? Does the use of that word suggest that other things stated as true by Wikipedia might not be authentic, but this one is? - ✅ = copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "covered with a chalk paste"..."coated with fine stucco or gesso": redundant, and potentially confusing to a reader who might not understand that these are all the same thing. Anyway, are stucco or gesso the right words? Stucco is a rough material that includes aggregates and is used on walls or other architecture. Gesso is a word for a specific substance used in the Italian painting tradition includes white pigment and a binder (often made from rabbit skin), and I think is misleading because there is no connection to Italy with the codex. The word used by von Hagen is sizing and that seems a better choice to me. - ✅ = copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "codex of bark paper" redundant with the previous sentence.
 * "eight inches (203.2 mm) high by eleven feet (3.35 m) long": again redundant with the same sentence in the previous paragraph, but now with the conversions, and with an inconsistent length. - ✅ = copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "using both sides": both sides of what? - ✅ = copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Around 250 of the approximately 350 signs": this introduces a new topic (the meaning of the codex rather than its physical description) and should at least be a new paragraph. It might make more sense for this and the rest of the section to actually be a different section, on the contents of the codex. - ✅ = copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "new-year ceremony custom traditions": In this context, "custom" can only be the adjective, meaning something that is not mass-produced. Is that what you meant? - ✅ = copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "The religious references show in a cycle of a 260-day ritual calendar the relationship between important Maya royal events to that of the phase of the moon in the zodiac": to what of the phase? - ✅ = copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "The document of pages that fold up like an accordion": huh? What is this descriptive phrase supposed to refer to? If the codex itself, then why is such a description here rather than in the description section?


 * "has since been described "as a Mexican book.": I am not convinced that this quote, with any of the context that it had in previous versions of our article now stripped away, adds much if any actual meaning. - ✅ = copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "succeeded in the nineteenth-century to be able to decipher the calendar section of the codex": very awkwardly phrased, with many weasel words. Why not "deciphered the calendar section of the codex in the nineteenth century"? - ✅ = copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "subsequent decoding of the non-calendar section was assigned gods to specific glyphs subsequent decoding of the non-calendar section was assigned gods to specific glyphs by Paul Schellhas": so awkward that I'm not sure of what it means or whether it's even grammatical. Maybe "Paul Schellhas assigned gods to specific glyphs of the non-calendar section"? - ✅ = copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Another milestone to deciphering the codex was in the 1950s by Yuri Knorozov's phonetic approach based on the De Landa alphabet": an approach is not a milestone. What did Knorozov actually accomplish? - ✅ = copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "when he became the first to transcribe": simpler "who first transcribed" ✅ = copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "two similar length parts" needs a hyphen to disambiguate what "similar" modifies: "two similar-length parts" ✅ = copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "due to an error ... due to the bombing": repetitive and unnecessarily passive. ✅ = copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Section complete. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

2. Verifiability: -> ✅ with this section. Addressed all issues. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * From the previous reading, "It is also unclear what criterion was used to decide between putting the entire source in a footnote, or using an abbreviated reference to a source in the Bibliography" does not seem to have been addressed. E.g. why is Knorozov a footnote and not a bibliography entry? - ✅ = copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are Brasseur de Bourbourg's first and middle names used in the footnote? Why is his name not in last, first order in the bibliography like everyone else's? And why is his journal paper reference formatted as if it were a chapter of an edited volume? - ✅ = copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is a journal paper (Förstemann) formatted as a book, with the name of its journal (Z. für Ethnologie) written as if it were the name of a publisher? And where is the rest of the journal publishing data (volume, issue, and page numbers)? - ✅ = copy edited accordingly of difference reference. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "The Dresden Codex totals 78 pages on 39 double-sided sheets." appears to be sourced to von Hagen (footnote 1) but these details are not mentioned by von Hagen. - ✅ = copy edited accordingly of difference reference. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Dresden librarian Ernst Wilhelm Förstemann succeeded in the nineteenth-century to be able to decipher the calendar section of the codex, including the Maya numerals used therein" is sourced to footnote [2], https://www.wdl.org/en/item/11621/, but that source only says weaker things about what he did (essentially that he could tell it was a calendar). - ✅ = copy edited accordingly of difference references. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "and the Mayan Long Count calendar": again, that's not what the source actually says. (It says that the codex helped him understand the long count but says nothing about a more direct relation between the codex and the long count.) Also why is the same footnote used to source consecutive sentences when a single footnote would do? - ✅ = copy edited accordingly of difference references. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ""The religious references show in a cycle of a 260-day ritual calendar the relationship between important Maya royal events to that of the phase of the moon in the zodiac": one of the sources for this sentence, footnote [15], Aveni p.220, says nothing resembling this. It does not mention 260 days, royal events, nor the phase of the moon. (Reference [8] Teresi also doesn't mention royal events nor the phase of the moon, but it at least mentions the 260-day cycle. And reference [14], Sharer, is no better.) I couldn't see page 221 to check the other Aveni footnotes. - ✅ = copy edited accordingly of difference references. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "The four are named to indicate the geographical locations where they were kept originally or are kept now": that's not what reference [7] (Ruggles p.133) says: he says that are all named after the location of their discovery. So the Dresden codex is not called "Dresden" because it is now in Dresden, but because it was discovered to be a Maya codex when it was found in the archives in Dresden. I couldn't see page 133 to check the accuracy of the other Ruggles footnotes. - ✅ = copy edited accordingly of difference reference. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "bark paper ... coated with fine stucco or gesso" is a word-for-word copy from reference [8] (Teresi).
 * Why does the first paragraph of the "History" section have two consecutive copies of the same footnote [14] rather than one footnote for the whole paragraph? - ✅ = copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why does the bibliography entry for Sharer not also credit Traxler?
 * "by Hernán Cortés, governor of Mexico": the source does not say that Cortés sent it, only that he sent other things. - ✅ = referenced additionally by Thompson page 17, "We have seen that the Dresden Codex may have been among the examples of Indian writings sent by Cortes to the Emperor Charles V in 1519. The Emperor's residence was normally in Vienna, and it is Austria that the supposed gifts of Cortes have been found. Accordingly, the fact that our book was in Vienna when first brought to light strengthens the theory that it was, indeed, one of the samples of Indian ingenuity sent to the Emperor in 1519," - ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "examples of Mesoamerican books": another word-for-word copy from [14]. - ✅ = copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "The lunar series has intervals correlating with eclipses, while the Venus Table correlates with the apparent movements of that planet": nothing resembling this can be found in the source, Sharer p.129 (footnote [13]). - ✅ = copy edited accordingly of difference references. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Section complete. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Given that edits ostensibly made to address the GA concerns actually introduced new plagiarism (and that the article appears to me now farther from GA than before) can you give me a reason why I should not quick fail this under GA immediate-failure criterion 2?


 * - ✅ -- My main reference source I used was A Commentary on the Dresden Codex: A Maya Hieroglyphic, Book Hardcover – 1972, by John Eric Sidney Thompson (Author), 2 customer reviews --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Third reading
Writing and organization: the old issues have been marked as "done", only to have a similar number of new issues arise, hydra-like. At least the organization of topics into sections seems to be converging to something stable and logical, but at the sentence level we still have many problems.
 * "It has hieroglyphs" — maybe we could use more specific words? Like, it was written in Mayan hieroglyphs? ✅ - copy edited accordingly.
 * "are eight inches wide" — big mismatch with later statement of its width.✅ copy edited accordingly.
 * "contains between a front and back decorative board cover 78 pages" — the big gap between verb and object is unidiomatic and confusing.✅ - copy edited accordingly.
 * "It has an overall length" — the pronoun can only refer to the most recent noun, "sheet", but that would be wrong.✅ - copy edited accordingly.
 * "The document" — let's avoid circumlocutions that make the reader guess the subject. How about "The codex"?✅ - copy edited accordingly.
 * "view-able": the hyphen is so 18th-century. Why not "viewable"? ✅ - copy edited accordingly.
 * "The Dresden Codex book" — isn't this redundant? ✅ - copy edited accordingly.
 * Why is the first link to codex in an unrelated sentence of the history section? Wouldn't it make more sense for it to be in the lead? ✅ - copy edited accordingly.
 * "because of the astronomical tables in the book and that area is known to have done such studies" doesn't make sense. What studies? How can an area be something that does studies? And the grammar "because of...and that" is not right either; the part after the word "and" needs to be something that you could write immediately after "because", and "because that" is just wrong. ✅ - copy edited accordingly.
 * "that of matching decorative evidence of ceramic": again, pay attention to the grammar. What are you trying to say here? ✅ - copy edited accordingly.
 * "Scholars that have studied": why are we writing about scholars in general only now, after having already gone into detail about one of them? ✅ - copy edited accordingly.
 * "suggests that it was written": the subject is "scholars" and requires a plural verb.✅ - copy edited accordingly.
 * "the codex document": again with the awkward and redundant circumlocutions. "the codex" would be better.✅ - copy edited accordingly.
 * "Indian writings": why is this in italics? If it is a quoted phrase, put it in quote marks. If not, use a more appropriate name than the outdated "Indian".✅ - copy edited accordingly.
 * "had identified this book being": grammar requires it to be "had identified this book as being" ✅ - copy edited accordingly.
 * "of that planet": see WP:SUBMARINE. If you want to make a link to Venus (planet), write "of Venus".✅ - copy edited accordingly.
 * "The codex also contains almanacs, astronomical and astrological tables, as well as ritual schedules": if you're going to use "as well as" instead of "and", then the first two of the items in this listing need to be separated by a conjunction, not just a comma. And for that matter, how can it contain (multiple) almanacs, when an almanac is itself an entire printed work such as the codex itself?✅ - copy edited accordingly.
 * "The codex has played a key role in the deciphering of Mayan hieroglyphs": this is out of place here, and would make more sense as the opening sentence of the previous paragraph.✅ - copy edited accordingly.
 * "For this, he divided" — does "this" refer to the pagination or the transcription? Is the "For this" phrase needed at all here? ✅ - copy edited accordingly.
 * "The codex suffered serious water damage": this is not about page sequences, the subject of this section. Maybe it should be moved to the description or history section? ✅ - copy edited accordingly.

Referencing: Given the severe sourcing problems that have been pervasive throughout this review (including both claims that were not supported by their source and close paraphrasing from the source) it makes me worried to see that, in this version, the footnotes are now much more heavily reliant on offline sources (Thompson, Lyons, Anzovin, Coe, Decker, and the Sächsische Landesbibliothek) that I can't check. But I don't see any choice other than to take it in good faith. This means that footnotes 1-3, 5, 7-13, 16, 18-27, and 29-31, are all unchecked. = ✅ I have all the pages to the main source of Thompson scanned that describes in detail the Maya book. Example of page 4 talking about the accordion style layout for viewing 2 pages at the same time and how constructed. I can supply links to any of the other pages.
 * "exhibited at the museum of the Saxon State Library": no doubt true, but the source (footnote 6) only says that it is held in their collections, not quite the same thing. = ✅ see below of work done.
 * "The Dresden Codex contains astronomical tables of great accuracy. It is most famous for its Lunar Series and Venus table.": the source says nothing about it being highly accurate, and doesn't mention the Lunar Series. Also it doesn't say that the codex itself is famous for the Venus table; what it says is that "one of the most famous" of the tables in the codex is the Venus table. = ✅ see below of work done.
 * Why is footnote 18 (one of the many Thompson footnotes, to a work published in 1972) used to source a theory of Sharer and Traxler (published in 2006)? And is it really Sharer and Traxler's theory? Their book went through many earlier editions with other authors; which edition was the one that first contained that theory? = ✅ see below of work done.
 * Compare "The codex suffered serious water damage during World War II" with Sharer's "The Dresden codex suffered water damage ... during World War II". And then observe that this new instance of close paraphrasing was introduced after my previous review, in which I threatened to fail this GA nomination for problems that included close paraphrasing. And that Sharer is not even cited for this sentence. = ✅ see below of work done. Referenced to Thompson page 19. and to Coe, page 3. It is not to Sharer.

Given the fact that new and serious problems continue to be introduced at a similar rate to the removal of reviewed problems, that a large fraction of the accessable source footnotes are problematic, and especially that new close paraphrasing continues to be introduced, I think the only choice is to fail this. It's definitely in a better state than it was at the start of this process, but that's not good enough.—David Eppstein (talk) 08:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC) ✅ - addresses all the issues for the Third reading. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What part of "I have already failed this nomination" do you not understand? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I understood from day 1. I'm getting it ready for another GA reviewer. I have asked GOCE to go over it first before I renominate. I did not ping you = you must have picked this up from your Watch list (which you can remove now since GA1 has failed. I will renominate for GA2 a little later, for whoever wants to review it. BTW, I have scanned in all the Thompson source pages and can provide a link to any of the 122 pages = apparently you were concerned of this off-line book source. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The notice on the Failed GA notice says, There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. = that's what I am doing. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the explanation. I'll un-watchlist it. My suggestion would be, rather than rushing to re-nominate as quickly as possible, that you step back from the article for a while (long enough so that when you look at it, what you see is the actual text rather than what you remember writing) and then carefully go over each sentence asking yourself whether it makes sense and whether it is supported by the sources — the sort of reading that you would expect a GA reviewer to make. My impression is that more of that sort of thing would have significantly reduced the number of problems that came up in this review. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent advice. I'll go to work and make improvements to the Franklin's electrostatic machine now, to see if I can't bring that up to GA status. I'm getting some Michigan ILL books for both these articles for additional references. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)