Talk:Experiments and Observations on Electricity/GA2

GA2 Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Spinningspark (talk · contribs) 17:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I see that a lot of work has been done since the last review and that sections have been added as I suggested. However, there are still some structural issues which should be fixed before proceeding with a full review. There is now a "legacy" section, but it opens with introducing more editions rather than have them in the editions section. The "editions" section almost immediately digresses into a description of repetitions of the lightning rod experiments by others. It opens with a French translation, but fails to say anything about the first edition. The contents section digresses into discussions which might be better in the background section. Either the end of the background section, or the beginning of the contents, should explain that the book consists of a collection of Franklin's letters. Not having this context makes the cotents section very confusing. I know that information is in the lead, but the lead is supposed to be a summary of things already in the article, not introduce new information.

I think what you need to do before I go ahead with a detailed review is go carefully through the entire article to ensure that all information is in an appropriate section and that it makes sense to the reader in the order given. Take my comments above as examples only of things that might need improving; there may well be other things that need looking at. I appreciate that digressions are sometimes necessary for a proper explanation, but the current state of the article is definitely a little confused.

You wrote on my talk page "There doesn't seem to be specifically what technical information was added on each new English addition = just that so many of Franklin's letters were added to enlarge the edition." I take it that this was in response to my comment that some description of the expanded contents should be given. But we have online access to at least some of the editions, so we can directly see what has been added without requiring a description by other sources.

The lead is a little short. The article is not very long, so a long lead would not be expected, but it is still short compared to the length of the article. It could at least be expanded to two paragraphs. It currently says nothing about lightning research for instance, which is a substantial part of the article contents. Some specific publication dates could also be added.

Some of the claims in the lead seem a little overexuberant. "...it was unique. In-depth study of the principles of electricity was a new field and no other book had this kind of information" and "It provided a basis for all future research on electricity that took place in the science community worldwide". Certainly, Franklin's work was very important, but it was definitely not a new field. William Gilbert (astronomer) had done some work on electricity in the 16th century for instance. The claim that it was the basis of all future research worldwide is also extraordinary. Franklin may have inspired the research of those immediately following him, but claiming that the work of James Clerk Maxwell or Nikola Tesla is directly based on Franklin is pushing the boundaries of reality. I am having difficulty pinning down where exactly these claims are sourced to. Partly, it seems to be sourced to Joseph Priestly. The article says that "Priestly writes..." but the following text is not in quotation marks and I cannot find it in Priestley's book. Presumably, this represents something Cohen said about what Priestly said. Can you please quote here the exact text in Priestly/Cohen that these claims are based on? In any event, I think the article needs toning down to something a bit more factual. SpinningSpark 17:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for GA2 review. There is much to work on here, so will be giving it thought and research for the next few days. I should have a start on improvements to the article by the end of the week. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: I have done some copy editing and expanded the lead. I am doing research and will be working on the article later on in the week. Will let you know when done.--14:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Fine. The stage we need to be at before a detailed review can be started is that the structure is basically stable. That is, there is no need for large chunks to be moved around or added. SpinningSpark 16:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

O.K. I am 90% done now with the major improvements. Just doing some final tweaks now for polishing. Should be done Friday 3/17/2017 and will notify you the status of where I am on that day.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Note A. - Cohen says, Priestley declares....... (page images)

Cohen (1941) page 139

Cohen (1941) page 140

--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: I am ready now for a re-review. In the process of providing references I know I can not do original research and MUST always use secondary sources. That’s why I have used professor I. Bernard Cohen as one of my main sources. He has written several different books over decades that talk of Franklin’s book. The most information is from his 1956 book "Franklin and Newton" in Chapters 9 and 10 pages 365-480. Another good historian that wrote on this book and Ben Franklin in general was Leo Lemay and I used him also for many references. Another of my use of secondary sources has been the National Historical Publications and Records Commission of the US National Archives using their Founders Online.com website.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to get back to this, I'm looking through it now. SpinningSpark 18:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Start of new review

Background

• "... after these lecture demonstrations." This is said in the context of magic shows. So is magic being discussed, or lectures, or both? Basically, it is unclear if the same event is still being discussed. = Copy edited accordingly.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• "thru". I'm not the best person to comment on American spelling, but I believe that the spelling thru is considered informal. Thus, it is not suitable to use in an encyclopaedia article. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 181#August 19 thru July 7. It is also not consistent with the rest of the article - through is used later. = Copy edited accordingly.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Contents

• Citing Collinson's page as the main article for this section does not make much sense to me.
• The contents section is still not a comprehensive description of the contents of the book. The first few paragraphs are talking about how the book came about. This would be better as a separate section preceding the contents section. The contents section itself should open with something like "the book consists of x letters" or whatever. It should say how they are organised (by subject, by date, in chapters, or generally not organised at all). It should give some idea of how much of the book is given over to various subjects; lightning, electricity generation, storage etc., as well as highlighting important experiments. When I skimmed through this last month, I thought this issue had been addressed, but it really hasn't, and this is the big issue that I have with this article. Without a decent contents section, we really just have an article on the life and works of Franklin; material that would be better on Franklin's own page.

• I still have some reviewing to do, but I'm going to stop there to let you digest that last comment. It is the main thing holding up a promotion to GA. It is something that can be overcome, and on the plus side, the evolution of the book is now much clearer. I feel much happier with the article because of that. SpinningSpark 13:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for new review. I am thinking on the parts you mentioned and will get to them as soon as I can.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• I'm reading through the article now in relation to your comments. Will work on the upgrading in the near future.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Doug, please don't use tick marks or other graphics in your responses. I like to mark the status of items myself with a graphic after I have reviewed the change. Adding tick marks confuses that process. SpinningSpark 16:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Doug, are you still working on this, or would you like me to complete the review now? SpinningSpark 13:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Yes = could you complete the review now. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Full review

Background

• "He considered his findings to be non-speculative, as something anyone could repeat or prove themselves if they wanted to." I'm not sure that I get what this sentence is doing. This is the nature of all scientific research. In the modern view, if it is not repeatable, it is not scientific. Perhaps it is making a comparison with drawing conclusions through the power of pure reason, as the ancient Greek philosophers would do, and disdaining the practicalities of experimentation? Whatever the reason, it needs clarifying what point it is making.

• Rewrote for clarification.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I still think that reads like you are talking down to your readers, but I won't make it an issue for GA. SpinningSpark 17:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• "grounded". This could more usefully be wikilinked to Ground (electricity) rather than put in italics.

• Copy edited and wikilinked to ground (electricity) for clarification.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• "the expensive price of two shillings and sixpence British money." There is a template that can convert this to modern prices. You could format it something like this: (equivalent to £18 in 2015)

• Couldn't figure out the template. Asked Help Desk and they didn't know either. Can you add the correct conversion template -or- give it to me here and I will add to article. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The code you need is actually in my post above if you look in edit mode. Here it is again in text - ({{Inflation|UK|.125|1751|2015|fmt=eq|cursign=£}}). The answer you got on the help desk was right for the question you asked; the template does not convert currency, and in any case a conversion to dollars is not possible because US$ did not exist in 1751! Just leave it in British currency. SpinningSpark 14:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for help on this - I was stumped and I missed it in edit mode (will look there from now on as an additional place).--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

References

• Benjamin Franklin: Live Wire. There are two authors of this book. You are only showing one.

• Added second author to source and corrected inline refs accordingly.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• "He referred to Spencer as Dr. Spence from Scotland". The reference page cited is p.40 but the identification of Spence as Spencer is not given until p.42.

• Corrected to page 42.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Contents

• "element of species of matter". Should that read "element, or species, of matter"? It seems ungrammatical as it is.

• copy edited --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• "He came to the conclusion that all objects have an equal balance of element objects." The meaning is not very clear. What does Franklin means here by "element" or "element objects"? Is it classical elements, or is it more along the lines of "atoms" (elemental particles) of electricity, or something else? Does the source use the phrase "element object"? Much of the rest of the paragraph needs clarifying, but that can only be done after bottoming out the basic terminology.

• copy edited paragraph for clarifying terminology.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think you can use the term atoms unless Franklin or his commentators are using it, and then it would need to be clearly distinguished from the modern meaning. I know I used the term in my post, so sorry if that has misled you. I did not intend for you to write the article like that. If you want, I can help you rewrite that section. SpinningSpark 17:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• @Spinningspark: Thinking on this one. Yes, would appreciate any help and/or suggestions.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I have rewritten it. I've also added something on Franklin's failure to recognise the existence of negative charges. His observations on this only make sense once this is understood. Feel free to fix anything I have got wrong. SpinningSpark 18:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• "following the military term idea of an assembly". This is an odd way of putting it and not quite grammatical. The military term battery refers to a group of cannons. Why not say that directly?

• copy edited. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• "The fourth English edition, published in 1769, was personally supervised by Franklin" This is the second time this has been said. I suggest removing the first mention, ie the sentence "Franklin personally supervised this publication and made corrections so that the information published in earlier editions would be correct in this edition."

• removed first mention.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• "(i.e. Letter V then became Letter VI)." This seems superfluous, and the unexplained change to Roman numerals is confusing.

• removed - Letter V then became Letter VI. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• The caption of the image says the fourth edition was 496 pages while the text says that is 469.

• corrected text to 496 per source. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Editions

• "This idea of electricity being attracted to points was suggested to Franklin early in 1750 by Hopkinson." The preceding sentence says that the book claims lightning is attracted to points. The following sentence says that it was Franklin that made the connection that lightning was electricity and that this idea could be applied to lightning. However, the words "This idea..." imply that Hopkinson knew lightning was electricity (since that is what is implied by the first sentence). If it was not Hopkinson that made the connection, then you might want to change "This idea..." to "The idea...".

• changed "This idea" of electricity being... -> "The idea" of electricity being... --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• "Spital square". The page Spital Square exists (it redirects to Spitalfields). If this is the same place, it should be wikilinked.

• wikified Spital Square --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• Most of the passage on lightning rods, except for the first sentence, has very little to do with editions. It belongs in other sections, or perhaps a new "Reception in France" subsection.

• "Reception in France" subsection. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Legacy

• "...as Galvani, Volta, Coulomb, and Ampere were." This reads like name dropping. It does not really add anything.

• dropped Galvani, Volta, Coulomb, and Ampere. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

See also

• Franklin's electrostatic machine is already linked in the text so should not appear in See also. It should also not be listed as the "Main article" in the "Background" section. While it is relevant (and is linked in the text) it is far from the main subject of the section.

• removed "main|Franklin's electrostatic machine" + in "See also" section.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Notes

• "There is hardly any European into which they have not been translated..." The word language appears to be missing there, but I cannot see the original quote.

• + language. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Coldwell: I have now completed my review. As before, you may leave a comment under each item if you wish, but please do not strikethrough or add graphic icons. SpinningSpark 15:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.