Talk:Schuyler Wheeler/GA1

GA 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: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 09:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

This looks a very interesting article about a lesser known inventor from the United States. His work with visually impaired veterans seems particularly of note. I wonder if this could be an interesting DYK nomination too. simongraham (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Simongraham: Thanks for taking up review. It was a Did You Know in 2017 with over 4,000 views for the inventor of the electric fan.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Coldwell: Great minds... simongraham (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

• Well written

the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout etc.

• Verifiable

it contains a list of all references, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

all inline citations are from reliable sources;

it contains no original research; and

it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

• Broad in its coverage

it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

• Neutral

it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

• Stable

it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Illustrated

images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

The article is clearly written and accessible to a general audience. It is stable, 72.2% of authorship is one user, Doug Coldwell. It was ranked a C class article by the same user on 22 March 2017 but has been improved with substantial edits in November 2020.

• The article is illustrated by relevant images that are marked as being licensed in the public domain. However, the positioning of the images of the "Double-Duty Finger Guild of Crocker-Wheeler Company, department for the blind auxiliary factory and training center" and "Crocker-Wheeler blind workers training to tape electric motor armature coils at the Double-Duty Finger Guild" are such that they do not align with the gallery at some resolutions. I suggest looking to see if both the images are needed and if so considering adding them to the gallery.

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• The caption for "Double-Duty Finger Guild of Crocker-Wheeler Company, department for the blind auxiliary factory and training center" seems to have an extraneous line break. There are line breaks in other captions that could also be removed.

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Dates are consistent with MOS:DATE.

• The first reference to initials should be expanded as per MOS:ACRO1STUSE. Thus "The IEEE recognized him" should read "The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) recognized him". Please also add the link.

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• "They manufactured electric motors and founded the industry". The latter claim seems very global. Does this mean that they were instrumental in founding the industry in New York? What relationship did they have with similar companies which were being founded at the same time such as AEG in Germany, ASEA in Sweden, Ferranti in the UK or the Thomson-Houston Electric Company in Massachusetts?

•  Done - Source says, Organized with Charles G Curtis and Francis B Crocker 1886 the C & C Electric Motor Co which produced first electric motor industry as a commercial business organized Crocker Wheeler Company 1888. Copy edited accordingly, founded the business as the first commercial one. I take that to mean the first one worldwide to make electric motors as a commercial business. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• As the source dates from 1914, I can understand the difficulty. As [Schroeder (1986)] writes, the electric motor industry was in its infancy into the early twentieth century. According to [Wheeler's IEEE obituary], "They were the pioneer manufacturers of small electric motors". I suggest that wording like that. simongraham (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Done - reworded to They were pioneer manufacturers of small electric motors.

• @Simongraham: Will that work? --Doug Coldwell (talk)

• "established an auxiliary factory of the Double-Duty Finger Guild". Does this mean that the factory was a part of the Guild?

•  Done - It was a separate training center and material was brought from the main factory to this auxiliary facility for the blind to put together as another factory facility branch from the main factory that was a few blocks away. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• "to explain to the French and British". Does this mean the French and British governments or specific learned societies?

•  Done - governments. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Remove the duplicate links from "one of three representatives of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers" and "His papers are archived primarily with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)". The full name should be changed to IEEE for consistency.

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Coldwell: Well done for another informative and well-constructed article. Please ping me when you are ready for me to look again. simongraham (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Simongraham: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• @Simongraham: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Doug Coldwell: Excellent work. That is a Good article. simongraham (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2021 (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.