User talk:Megan Reyna/sandbox

Ebenezer Kinnersley Kinnersley was one of the premier showmen of electricity in British America from 1749-1774. His lectures of electrical phenomena were not simply displaying natural phenomena, but instead were interactive demonstrations that utilized audience participation. In doing so, audience members were able to have an embodied experience with electricity, heightening their own understanding of the sensations described. They could witness the attraction between positive and negative forces, charged coins flying a participant’s mouth with the help of an electrical discharge, or even a spark created from their finger. Kinnersley described these mechanical shows as” a diverting Experiment, which cannot be well understood, but by those who try it.” These demonstrations did not come without a price – admission typically costing about five shillings a person, well above a day’s worth of work for most laborers of the mid-eighteenth century. Nevertheless, individuals of persons of all socioeconomic classes were drawn to such curious displays, Kinnersley’s advertisements touting exhibitions of wonder and spectacular displays. Kinnersley toured as an itinerant across British America, taking his displays to colleges, courthouses and coffee houses. These spectacles of electricity were not intended only to teach, but also to entertain Kinnersley’s audience. With the rise of bourgeoises consumer culture and subsequently the increased desire for leisure activities, there was opportunity to capitalize on these electrical demonstrations for profit. In this way, Kinnersley’s shows served as a basis for similar scientists to promote their and further understanding of their practices to the masses. The electrical spectacle further integrated into American life as a result of Kinnersley’s ability to effectively integrate religious life into the call for reason and desire for enlightenment. His demonstrations claimed to display the active power of God’s laws in order to highlight nature’s rationality. Kinnersley and other demonstrators acknowledged their limitations for understanding God’s metaphysical underworking’s of the phenomena they showed. Paris Electrical Exhibition of 1881

The Times reported a few electrical accidents that resulted in fires. Though noting that such incidents aroused some alarm at the exhibition, the editorial sought to play down the events in effort to preserve the competence of the event. After about at least five electrical fires they were no longer able to directly discuss the danger of electricity when not properly demonstrated or attended to. Crystal Palace Electrical Exhibition In 1882, following the electrical accidents of the Paris Electrical Exhibition of 1881, there was a desire to utilize the electrical exhibition of the Crystal Palace to redeem the public’s conception of electricity as safe, reliable and economical. This was not without some initial fear that the dangers of electricity would follow, the exhibition opening nearly a month behind schedule to ensure that safety precautions were taken. The British Edison Company took a special interest in gaining the trust of Palace visitors, as they would have a great commercial benefit if it were to be achieved. The Edison Company notably displayed a miniature version of its entire distribution system within the Crystal Palace. Additionally, they pushed the use of low-voltage incandescent lights as a low hazard. During the exhibition there were no reported electrical accidents, to the success of the technology’s proponents. Further, the Times featured Edison’s novel displays as a marvelous part of the Palace exhibition and featuring two images of the displays out of eight total included from the Palace exhibits. This also contributed to the success of the exhibition to restore some confidence in electrical technologies and their safety in practice.

Comments

 * Ebenezer's demonstrations are a solid addition to the more biographical article, seeing the structure it might be very aesthetic to divide; the first paragraph as a lead, then demonstration/shows/experiments (as you see fit), switch the last two paragraphs to have a section of religious life before another one that talks about his lasting contribution to showmanship in science.


 * One thing I noticed however, is that albeit it is well written, the more 'narrative' style gives itself to less neutral positions, hence why Wikipedia is often dry. "Premier", "not simply", "heightening their understanding", "did not come without a price". etc.. These are not problematic in themselves, but are often subjective or ellaborative claims that would need a secondary source backing such opinion


 * Be sure to add citations on all articles


 * For the Paris Electrical Exhibition, I think the political standpoint of the editorial is a strong addition once sourced.


 * Similarly, in the Crystal Palace Exhibition, the Edison Company addition seems positive. However, albeit absent in the Paris Electrical Exhbition, be careful of biased language here. Given I have no source I can't tell, but "This also contributed to the success of the exhibition to restore some confidence in electrical technologies and their safety in practice." should be sourced from an external party assessing such correlation. for example.


 * Lastly, this is the talk page, be sure to post on the Article page (or in this case your Sandbox) Creatorjppl (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This article contains significant information regarding the topic of electrical demonstrations. However, the information is not presented with sources, so I have no way to gauge the reliability of your information. Also, I'm unsure whether the article is about Kinnersley specifically or about electrical demonstrations in general. It may be useful to add a lead to this article to clearly demonstrate its content. Additionally, I think that it would be better and more in line with the rest of Wikipedia's style if you used links in the body of the article instead of as section heads. Additionally, make sure to convert your subsections into proper sections when you post the page to the mainspace. Your sections regarding electrical exhibitions are clear and well-worded. However, you have a tendency to rely on large sentences which aren't exactly in line with Wikipedia's style and use some degree of editorializing, as Creatorjppl remarked above. Much of this will be useful in your Scipedia assignment, but at the moment, it's not particularly warranted. Another concern I have is how this article will mesh with the existing articles on similar topics which you link to. What will make your article distinct from the others and necessary to be written? Overall, this article has a lot of information at its disposal. However, it needs to better organize said information in order to become an excellent article, which I thoroughly believe it can become.

--JoFraDe (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Good job, overall, with providing engaging and important content. With regards to constructive criticism, peer reviewers who beat me to it have done a good job bringing up key edits here, so I do not have too much to add. The one thing I will mention is use of neutral tone and engagement in interpretation. When writing on your topic based on the secondary sources, my understanding is that you should not be doing any interpretation or "research work," as we normally do when writing essays - consider as an example your paragraph beginning with "The spectacles of electricity...". You contextualize the events with your note of "the rise of consumer culture," but provide no secondary source that makes this connection (i.e, a critical theory journal article or something) which makes it seem as though this is your original idea. Be sure to avoid this practice - Wikipedia should not contain original ideas of page creators/editors but instead reflect the state of the accepted secondary literature on a topic. Finally, be sure to state his full name in the very first sentence of your article. NicholasOrnstein (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)