Talk:Earth-return telegraph/GA1

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 21:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Kingsif's automated message. Nice to meet you and thanks for reviewing. SpinningSpark 22:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * First question: where is the promised timeline at the bottom? Though the history section seems long enough in a relatively short article that a timeline probably isn't needed
 * It's not a timeline of earth-return telegraphy. It's a timeline of the number of conductors used in electromagnetic telegraphy, as the title says.
 * However, there is that chart, which I don't really understand, though I assume it means something. That could be an issue.
 * The chart is the timeline, see point above for meaning. It's relevance is that number of wires directly relates to the economic impact of going to earth return.  I thought a chart would help make that point clear to the reader. SpinningSpark 23:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So the main issue with this part then would be that it's really unclear. Not every reader is going to be able to find and ask you, and good articles don't leave people confused. Is there any way it could be made clear. Also, to explain the relevance of a timeline for the number of conductors used in electromagnetic telegraphy, and what that is, for people who don't know anything about telegraphy. Kingsif (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've moved the chart to the section that discusses this issue which hopefully gives it better context. SpinningSpark 17:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason the chart is not chronological? The purpose seems to be number through time, not just increasing number. Kingsif (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is already a note in-article below the chart explaining this. SpinningSpark 00:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes - I'd been reading it top-down and with the jump to 1809 thought there were more out of order because of the reverse chronology. Kingsif (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Other images all good
 * Copyvio clear
 * Could a simpler word than commensurate be used, especially in the lead
 * Changed to "corresponding". <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 00:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The headers of the first two section could be improved, but I won't say they need to be in order to pass (at least make 'Reason for using' into 'Reason for use', though)
 * I've made the change you suggested. What is wrong with "Description" as a heading?  That seems like a perfectly adequate heading for a section saying what it is and what it does. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 00:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia doesn't describe. Most of the time, 'Description' sections don't just describe something (which would probably be OR and is non-encyclopedic), but a header saying this gives a false expectation and can lead newer editors to think it's fine to just make an article where they wax on about something. Kingsif (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * While the 'explain it like I'm 5' style of the description is probably useful to some, it's not an encyclopedic tone. Could this section (particularly first paragraph) be rewritten.
 * Writing an explanation that is understandable to those who don't have a good grasp of the basics is not the same as writing in a childish style. A particular galling comment after your complaint about the use of "commensurate".  So come off it please – rather than a vague unactionable insult, give specific comments on items that actually fail the GA criteria (and I'm pretty sure that "don't explain it like I'm 5" isn't one of them, but "understandable to an appropriately broad audience" definitely is). <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 00:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What? ...I'm referencing a meme, by the way, if they 'like I'm 5' upset you. It was supposed to be a quick way to get to the point, while also funny. And I very pointedly said it was useful, but it's descriptive, not informative. They're very distinct tones, that's what I was asking for the change of, but you seem to have not paid attention to the point of the comment to instead get offended at my shorthand. Kingsif (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for flying off the handle, that wasn't very helpful. It's still the case that not being specific is unactionable without some (possibly mis-)interpretation.  The only thing that strikes me as a tone issue is (also known as ground) which could be simply "(ground)" if you like.  It needs to remain in some form because this is a US/UK terminology issue. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 06:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How is directly asking for something to be rewritten so it has an encyclopedic tone unactionable and open to interpretation?! Wikipedia has a banner that asks for articles to be rewritten because of unencyclopedic tone and does not elaborate, I wouldn't think I'd have to do so for an experienced editor. Kingsif (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if every sentence begins with a double-space, but please correct it wherever it appears
 * See User:Spinningspark/Two spaces at the end of sentences <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 06:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I can understand that you learned that way, but double spaces haven't been standard since the 80s and will currently get a college paper failed, it'd be good practice to not reintroduce them. Kingsif (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This sentence The first use of an earth return to complete an electric cicuit was by William Watson in 1747 if experiments using water as a return path are discounted. needs some punctuation and typo fixing
 * I can't see how punctuation helps, but I've recast it to make it shorter. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 07:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was thinking a comma after '1747' for clarity of expression. It's better now, but that comma would still be useful. Kingsif (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Does 1747 need to be repeated in the next sentence, especially with the awkward comma placing it forces
 * Done <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 07:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Could the early history be tightened up, to not just spout the various early discoveries of ground use in electricity. Particularly, why on earth is water even mentioned?
 * The early history is a series of isolated experiments. What more is there to say?  Water is mentioned because using bodies of water (rivers, harbours etc) as a return path is a very similar principle to earth return.  So much so that some authors give this as the first use of earth return.  However, putting that first would be supporting that position in Wikipedia's voice.  So I have put the first actual earth return first, but with the qualification on water return to indicate there is another possible interpretation.  Having mentioned water return, it is kind of obligatory to give the first use of it and not leave the reader wondering. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 07:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The article isn't about earth return, though. It's about the earth-return telegraph. A bit of background on earth return being discovered can be justified, but not more than that, and certainly not water. Kingsif (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's just one sentence giving the ealiest known example. The ultimate justification for this is that my sources think the two things are connected. Beauchamp's History of Telegraphy is particularly direct; "the use of an earth return (strictly speaking, a 'water return')..." <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 17:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Earth return' is variously hyphenated and not, pick one for consistency
 * I believe I have been consistent. The hyphenated form is used when it is being used as a compound attributive modifier.  See WP:HYPHEN bullet #3. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 07:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand adjectival forms, I think I was referring to inconsistencies when it mentioned just 'earth return' (the concept). Kingsif (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been through them all and think I've got every one now. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 17:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The phrasing of seriously disturbed and obliterated could be toned-down
 * Changed "obliterated" → "ovrwhelmed". Some such word is needed to avoid going into a long-winded explanation.  I don't see what is wrong with "seriously disturbed".  There is a difference between adding noise to a data link that causes the occassional error, and noise that makes the signal completely unreadable. Again, some such adverb is needed; I'm happy to take suggestions on what that should be. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 08:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Can code pulses get a wikilink to an appropriate article
 * Done <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 08:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For a reader that does not know about telegraphy, the sentence Repeaters were not available for submarine cables until the middle of the 20th century. is completely meaningless. It is possibly irrelevant, but if it isn't, can it be connected to the context
 * Context explained. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 08:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ditto for the next sentence about syphon recorders
 * Done <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 08:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentence A return conductor following the same path as the main conductor will have the same interference induced in it is fine - though again, simpler terminology than 'induced in it' would be helpful - but would read better if connected/integrated with the sentence before it.
 * Induced is the correct term and very frequently occurs in discussions of electrical circuits. It's hard to come up with a replacement that isn't in some way vague or inaccurate, but I'll listen to suggestions.  See next bullet for the rest. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 09:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The next sentence, though, about common-mode interference, again doesn't seem to make sense and feels out of place - especially since it seems to offer a solution but the next sentence jumps right back to the problem
 * The sentence order here is, (1) state the solution, (2) say what the solution does, (3) explain why it works, and (4) give an example of it being put into practice. I don't think that the sentence order per se is any kind of problem.  It really is necessary to mention common-mode interference rejection; the previous sentence has just said that another conductor with even more interference was introduced.  That absolutely requires an explanation of why that is actually helpful.  I've recast the Cape Town example to make the context clearer. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 09:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe remove the 'terrible' before 'noise problems'.
 * I've changed that to "severe". Some sort of adjective is needed here; nowadays we would consider the poor quality of earth-return telephone lines made them virtually unusable. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 09:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * immediately almost entirely disappeared → "immediately disappeared almost entirely"
 * Done <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 09:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Overall

 * A range of prose issues, details above, and a confusing empty timeline section with contextless table. Kingsif (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I've addressed every point now. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 09:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Responded to a few things above. Will look at the others as they are in the article further. Kingsif (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't accept some of your comments above and this review seems to be going well outside the GA criteria in places. I'm totally baffled by your claim that "[a]n encyclopedia doesn't describe".  Of course it does.  Where is that position supported in guidelines?  I'm not going to continue to respond to minor matters of style.  Things like that should not really be in a GA review in the first place per WP:GACN, but once I've replied that I don't agree to a style issue, and if it isn't something proscribed in the MOS, that should be an end to it per MOS:STYLEVAR.  Whether or not it would fail a term paper is utterly irrelevant; Wikipedia articles aren't meant to be term papers.  You are welcome to discuss my choice of styles on my talk page, but please don't keep niggling about the same issue over and over.  Go to a second opinion if you feel it is really problematic. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 16:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So tell me where you think it's gone outside the criteria? Instead of just saying you're going to ignore what you don't like. I'm not an unreasonable guy, but from you jumping down my throat for nothing I can't say it's been fun. As for "[a]n encyclopedia doesn't describe". Of course it does. Where is that position supported in guidelines? - it doesn't, it explains. And whichever guideline led to the orange tag for "improve tone". Encyclopedic tone means we say "The primary function of a chair is for sitting; other types of chair may encourage lounging" rather than 'A chair is a big thing you sit on'. But my main issue with this article is that parts just aren't clear, sorry. And since I have no interest in your outdated typing outside this review: I learned that Pluto was a planet, but I don't make Wikipedia say that. Do as you will, but from my MOS, double-space is incorrect and such a simple thing to fix. Kingsif (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to have been much activity recently; in fact, the most recent edits 10 days ago suggest that the article is still unclear even at the basic level of 'what is earth-return telegraphy'. For me, this article is not a good article - ignoring style, before you jump down my throat on that again, it's not accessible. Other issues that stick out are the table, which I now understand but can't see how it adds to the article, and your insistence that a history of the development of earth return is within focus in this article on a form of telegraphy that just happens to utilize earth return (it's not needed, and it could be confusing for readers who will probably expect something about telegraphy with water because it's been discussed). With no activity, no responses, and need for improvement, I'm going to fail this. If you come back to the article, I'll be happy to see it improved. Kingsif (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)