Talk:Apothecaries' system/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial GAN review

This is a (potentially) interesting subject; and overall the article is quite close to the standard required for GA, but is certainly not at GA standard or higher. There are deficiencies that could be corrected without too much effort, so I don't wish to fail it at this point.

Overall, I don't consider that the article (mostly the WP:lead and the tables), as it is currently written, encourages a reader to read the article; neither do I consider that it adds to the reader's understanding of the subject (they may give up reading it first). There is also the hurdle of getting GAN reviewers and Peer Reviewers to read it!

More detailed points:

The WP:lead is generally satisfactory, but I don't consider that the table, which exists elsewhere, is necessary here; it can be summarised as "The following weights are used: pound, ounce, drachm, scruple and grain". The article includes a whole section on Application to measures (volumes), and this is not mentioned in the WP:lead.
- Done, except I have gone into a bit more detail by mentioning the numerical relations between the units. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I might try myself to look again at the lead: feel free to revert me if I make a mistake and say something wrong! Physchim62 (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but that does not preclude any further improvements.Pyrotec (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General layout of sections. I don't consider that starting the main body with Application to measures (volumes), which is not in the WP:Lead, is helpful to the reader. The first section should talk about the weights / divisions of weights employed. The Variants section, particularly the first paragraph, contains useful information that could be expanded into a new first section of System of Weights (or alternative name, if you wish). The Application to Measures and Medical recipes, however, could follow straight after this.
- I have made the first section more inclusive, so it discusses weights and measures in English-speaking countries. I expect that this is what most readers are interested in. Please let me know what you think about this. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but that does not preclude any further improvements.Pyrotec (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Failures of WP:Verify. The are several paragraphs in Variants, Origins, Romance countries, Troyes, Nuremberg and Habsburg and Metrication without any in-line citations.
- I will look into this, but as I said elsewhere doing this properly would be too much work. I am sure almost everything is from at least one of the sources already cited, but identifying the right one in each instance is going to be very tedious. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Much of what is said here is uncontroversial. I'm not suggesting this "forgives" a failure to apply general standards, but the general principle of "we know where to find the information if we need it" is preserved. Physchim62 (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - This article is up at WP:GAN so it needs to satisfy WP:Verify, which at its simplest level means that verification (through in-line citations) is needed at paragraph level; however if it was at WP:FAC, verification would be needed at statement level. This [1] is an "authoritative" two page Information sheet from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. It could be used as a citation, where appropriate; it may obviate the need to search elsewhere.Pyrotec (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obsolescence. The metrication section is interesting in itself; but it is not clear if the metrication process was responsible for the Apothecaries' system becoming obsolete. The article needs to be improved, so that it is clear how and when obsolescence occurred.
- Makes sense, but I have no idea where to find this kind of analytical statement. My sources are 1) generally about weights and measures without discussing the apothecaries' system in particular, 2) old merchants' handbooks, and 3) an unreliable article from a customer magazine which discusses the apothecaries' system. Anyway, here is my opinion, which we may not be able to use. There were two opposite forces on the system used by apothecaries: international compatibility (the ability to read recipes and pharmacopoeias from other countries) and compatibility with the local civil weight system (often the apothecaries' system was used for preparing the medicine and the civil system for selling it). The first was the stronger one for centuries. Industrialisation caused people to rethink all these things, and the official prescription of the Avoirdupois system for apothecaries in the UK from the 1858 Medicinal Act shows where this could lead. But the relative strength of the two forces remained the same, so people continued to use the apothecaries' system (legally or illegally) until the metric system gained critical mass and superseded it. I think obsolescence probably occurred gradually between about 1850 and 1950. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obsolescence didn't happen overnight, that is clear! I can summarise the situation as: the apothecaries' system was designed for small masses, the commercial system was designed for large masses, but metric could handle both. Hence, as the metric system became ever more implanted in everyday life, there was less and less need for the apothecaries' system. Physchim62 (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not talk about the process of weighing, apart from inclined-beam weighing which is only mentioned in the lead. Presumably scales and set of weights were used (and could be purchased)? Should this be mentioned in summary and the necessary links be provided?
- Inclined-beam weighing means that you stop putting weight pieces on one side of a balance as soon as the merchandise gets off the ground on the other side. The nominal weight of the merchandise is what the weight pieces say; the real weight is more (because the balance is not yet horizontal), the percentage depending on the geometry of the balance. I hope my reformulation makes this clearer.
  - It should be explained somewhere why the apothecaries' system of weights is actually a measure of mass (just like most "systems of weights"). A footnote would be OK for me on this point. Physchim62 (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you want to mention and how. In case it helps: The article mentions in appropriate places that Nuremberg was a big exporter of weight pieces in the Middle Ages, and that later some German apothecaries used the much heavier Habsburg scale/weight sets because they offered good value for money. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is much improved, so I'm going to change my mind and drop this "suggestion". The article stands well enough without it. Done, but that does not preclude any further improvements.Pyrotec (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not yet checked the existing references / in-line citations.

I have made some "improvements", but if you disagree with them, I happy to discuss them in detail. Pyrotec (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, these are very helpful comments. The source of most problems is that the article is exclusively my own work (someone helped with the formatting of units, but apart from that there wasn't even a copy edit), that I am not aware of any literature at all that discusses the subject in even a remotely adequate way, and that I only learned about the topic while researching the article. (In case you wonder why, then, I decided to write the article, see here.) Oh, and once I was sure I had figured out most of what is worth telling, I lost interest. I wouldn't have submitted the article for a review, but I really appreciate the work you are doing and will try to fix the problems unless someone else is sufficiently interested to do it. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply and the history your involvement with this article began. Well, as is it is at WP:GAN my aim is to get it through to GA-class not to fail it. "On Hold" normally lasts for up to one week, but I can give it longer than that if necessary; and I should be able to get a couple of books on weights & measures during the week beginning 16th March. Pyrotec (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you order from your library, don't miss "Weights and Measures in Scotland". It doesn't talk about apothecaries' weights, but it seems to be the first scientific work that explains why units are in certain relations to each other. Absolutely amazing. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the recommendation. I've seen it in www.amazon.co.uk, but it is not one that I could borrow; I would have to buy it. I can borrow (provided no one else does it first): British weights & measures : a history from antiquity to the seventeenth century, Zupko, Ronald Edward and Weights and measures : their ancient origins and their development in Great Britain up to A.D. 1855, Skinner, F. G.; and I've ordered this [2] because it looks interesting.Pyrotec (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, the Linacre book looks like pretty extreme fringe to me. But at least it's cheap... "Compelling argument for the natural supremacy of the duodecimal system" – true in principle, but not in the way it was used in the old systems; the person who wrote this obviously never tried to convert from one old weight system into another, say from French weights (long the standard for science) into Imperial. Or simply to multiply an apothecaries' weight by 3. "Cosmic numerology and the number 42" – I think this speaks for itself.

I see you are in WikiProject Scotland. If you can't borrow the book I recommended, please be careful with what other sources say about Scottish units. Connor has found out that much that was taken for granted until recently is really misconceptions that started when antiquarians became first interested in the topic at a time when nobody remembered what the old units meant. E.g. this is where the incorrect idea comes from that the Scottish inch was slightly longer than the English one. They were in fact exactly the same, and standards were sent centrally from England to the burghs. (I don't remember in which century, but I was shocked how early that was; perhaps 9th century?) Antiquarians got this wrong because only the container of an ell standard survived, and they took it for the standard itself. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linacre comes from the "metric martyrs" & British Weights and Measures Association. I can borrow this one [3], and I might do so, but it appears to be more about prices than weights & measures.Pyrotec (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That looks very promising for adding additional information to the article. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Currently there are no images

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Currently there are no images
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

This is a comprehensive, wide-ranging, well referenced article. I needs more in-line citations and these can be provide, given time. The addition of illustrations, such as weights and/or measures would help. However, I'm passing the article for GA-status as it currently exist.

Congratulations and the article and thanks for all the hard work that has undoubtedly gone into producing it.Pyrotec (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]