Jump to content

Talk:Burt's solar compass

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleBurt's solar compass was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 13, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
August 30, 2020Good article nomineeListed
February 25, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 19, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that William Austin Burt was the first to invent a |workable typewriter in America, as well as a workable solar compass (pictured), a solar use surveying instrument, and an equatorial sextant, a precision navigational aid to determine with one observation the location of a ship at sea?
Current status: Delisted good article

Other sun compasses

[edit]

This article seems to be exclusively about Burt's sun compass. Others include, at least:

Several are described in detail here: [1] -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


There is a British Army manual for use of their Sun Compass, apparently not online, though I hope to find a link at the Imperial War Museum archive.Aertex (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

See Talk:Solar compass/GA1 for comments regarding the article under its old name, 'Solar compass'. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Description of the instrument

[edit]

Currently very confusing. I suggest splitting the section to first describe the principle of operation - how to point it at the sun so that it aligns with true north, and how the sights can then be used to fix a true direction from the set up point to any visible object.

Then explain how each component contributes to this functionality and the geometry and construction of that component, and how they all fit together.

Ping me when you think the description is comprehensible to an intelligent reader, who is not a surveyor or professional navigator (I am a mechanical engineer).

Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@Pbsouthwood: Thanks for the hints on this, however I think it is a little over my head. I have arranged the paragraphs in an order that seems to make sense to me, however I don't know if it makes sense to a professional surveyor. Can you look it over and make any adjustments in my editing as you think necessary. Obviously you are better on this instrument than I am since I have never seen one. You have a better understanding of it and how it operates. Whatever you think necessary for editing is fine by me. Thanks for your help.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eish! If I knew the instrument I would have had a go already. However the basic principles must follow spherical geometry so I will see if I can do something useful. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Coldwell, I have made a start with a new subsection Burt's solar compass#Principles of operation, stating the basic principle in as straightforward a way as I could manage at the time. Please look at what I have written, see if it makes sense to you, and tweak as you see fit to make it clearer if possible. If you want to explain it in more technical terms, go ahead, but I suggest we do that as a separate expanded/technical explanation for now. It may be worth considering later using the more detailed and technical description for the subsection and moving the simpler explanation to the lead. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbsouthwood: Looks good! Yes, it makes sense to me and a better job than I could have done. I'll let you continue at your own pace. Thanks for help. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Coldwell, I have done a major rewrite of the section. splitting it into a subsection on principles of operation and the basic functional components, with a subsection on the specific structure of a typical production version. It can probably still benefit from a bit of trimming, merging and rationalisation, but I think first a bit of proofreading to make sure I have not perpetrated any major errors or omissions. A very simple device, well designed and suited for purpose. Obvious after the fact, as so many really good designs are. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbsouthwood: Thanks. I will read it over after I get back from Wal-Mart shopping.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbsouthwood: Excellent job. I removed my duplicate 1836 patent image and left yours in. Your wording is way better than I could have ever done. I am thinking about nominating it for Good Article, along with 3 other Burt articles. The other compass associated one is Equatorial sextant. If you have time can you take a look at it? Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Coldwell, I am unable to find sufficient information to work out how the Equatorial sextant works. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the changes I made to clarify the way the instrument works have been changed back to explanations that appear to be significantly less clear on how the instrument works. I do not see how this improves the article. I suggest that a third opinion be requested to decide which version is more likely to be understood by a reasonably competent reader. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbsouthwood: I'm not sure what went wrong here. I do remember reading over your version you talk about above at 18:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC). To me it seems that I was quite satisfied with your work as I see I said: Your wording is way better than I could have ever done. PERHAPS sometime after that I changed your work back to my wording - I don't remember! The last I can recall now is that YOUR wording was much better than mine, as you have a better understanding of the instrument than I do. I remember at Revision as of 14:51, 7 July 2020 where I (Removed my duplicate image). I see then in the History that the Revision as of 20:59, 8 July 2020 I did a copy edit. PERHAPS here I may have accidently messed things up and rewrote YOUR wording that I remember I was happy with as of 15:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC). If I reverted back to Revision as of 14:51, 7 July 2020 would you be happy with that? As I look at it now, that appears to me to be good and a version I certainly can live with. I have no idea what went wrong, went wrong, went wrong. I certainly would like to go with YOUR wording on how the instrument works. Should I revert back to Revision as of 14:51, 7 July 2020 to be able to fix whatever it is that went wrong? I want to fix the issue to reflect YOUR wording on how the instrument words. You tell me what I should do -OR- you can write your wording on how the instrument works. Your version as of Revision as of 11:02, 7 July 2020 look good to me. All I want to do is remove my duplicate image, as I did in Revision as of 14:51, 7 July 2020 as you can see. Whatever went wrong, let's fix it. I'll go with what ever wording or Revision you want - that looks to me as I see it now. You have a much better understanding on the operations of the instrument than I do, so I would like to go with whatever wording YOU choose. I don't differ from your opinion on how the instrument works and would like to go with YOUR wording of whatever you would like as a description of how it works. What can we do along these lines to fix this situation? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Coldwell, My best guess is you inadvertently copy edited an old version. Shit happens, and on Wikipedia is usually fixed quite easily. I suggest revert to the version which has the least work to clean up. possibly my your last version where you removed the duplicate, just before the wonky copyedit. As far as I know this will not affect the move. Either short description is fine, so don't worry about fixing it. I will take a look after you are done and see if it is good to go. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would be version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burt%27s_solar_compass&direction=next&oldid=966482977 · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On looking closer, I am now fairly sure that is what happened.
In the history you can see at 16:51, 7 July 2020‎ Doug Coldwell talk contribs block‎ 27,936 bytes -85‎ Removed my duplicate image undothank, followed by (next above) 22:59, 8 July 2020‎ Doug Coldwell talk contribs block‎ 25,713 bytes -3‎ c/e undothank. Now you dont get from 27,936 to 25,713 by removing 3 bytes!
But if you put 3 bytes back onto the 25,713, you get 25,716, which is the size of your last version before I started copyediting, so it looks like you opened the version of 14:12, 6 July 2020, made the copyedit and saved it. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Coldwell, that looks fine to me. Looks fully resolved, though there might be some copy edits of value lost in the confusion. They are probably not worth the sweat of trying to reconstruct as they were done to an old version and may not be relevant any more. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbsouthwood: Great. Looks good to me also. I have it in as GAN. The review probably won't happen for at least a month yet. The reviewer will probably pick up on any final tweaking required. I will solve those issues then, as it looks like at this point in time there is nothing more I should do. Thanks for your help on this to resolve the issue (that it looks like I did inadvertently).--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Coldwell, Feel free to ping me when you get a reviewer. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. Thanks! --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Burt's solar compass/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 17:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I will be done with the review in a day or two. Thanks. — The Most Comfortable Chair 17:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • "Burt's Solar Compass or Astronomical Compass" — From the "History" section. Since it was called this when it was made (and since then), mention "astronomical compass" using "or", or in brackets.
  • "It was used by surveyors from the nineteenth century into the twentieth century." — "century" should be used only once.
  • "for its technology as being simple, rugged, inexpensive, reliable and accurate." — This part should be covered in the prose.

History of Burt compass

[edit]
  • Title of this section should be "History".
  • "He and his surveying crew by 1834 were surveying territory in the lower peninsula of Michigan" → "By 1834, he and his surveying crew were surveying territory in the lower peninsula of Michigan".
  • "It got away from the vagaries of the magnetic compass caused by iron ore deposits in a local land mass district." — Could use better phrasing instead of "it got away". Something like "It overcame"?
  • Minor point, but either use "magnetic needle compass" or "magnetic compass" throughout the section.
  • "Because of his accidental discovery of these iron deposits in Michigan he contributed much to America's Industrial Revolution." → "His accidental discovery of these iron deposits in Michigan contributed much to America's Industrial Revolution."
  • "The Calumet and Hecla Mine of Michigan's Copper Country was the leading copper producer in the world and discovered with Burt's instrument." → "The Calumet and Hecla Mine of Michigan's Copper Country was discovered with Burt's instrument, which became the leading copper producer in the world."
  • "enables surveyors to run more accurate lines, saving the surveyor much time." — "surveyor" should be mentioned once.
  • "It has since been referred to as Burt's Solar Compass or Astronomical Compass." — Initial letters should not be in caps and should be consistent with the article title, unless it was originally written with caps. If the latter is true, use "Burt's Solar Compass" or "Astronomical Compass".
  • Can we mention specific changes he made? After "Burt improved on the instrument over the years and in 1840 he received another patent on his solar compass."
 Done -- Burt improved on the instrument over the years with certain mechanics to make it simpler to operate with better accuracy.[12] Will this work?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cincinnati Land Office" → "the Federal Land Office". Since it is mentioned with that term later on and that is the official name.
  • "Renown" → "Renowned".
  • "until well into the twentieth century" — It should be more specific instead of "well into".
  • "magnetic style compass" → "magnetic needle compass" or "magnetic compass", whichever is used consistently as per above.
  • "A solar compass attachment to the surveyor's transit, was still the recommended method to use for obtaining the true north" → "A solar compass attachment to the surveyor's transit was still the recommended method for obtaining the true north"
  • "Burt's instrument invented in 1835" — remove "invented in 1835".
  • "used to survey 75 per cent of the public lands of the United States, consisting of nearly a billion acres ... while with Burt's solar compass it was only $15 per mile." — this whole paragraph could be moved to the "Awards" section, renaming it as "Reception" or "Legacy" instead (see my suggestion below).
 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Burt patented his solar compass innovation on February 25, 1836.[23]" — Repetition, so remove it from the second last paragraph.
 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He used it during two seasons, 1836–1837 and 1842–1843, surveying land in Iowa.[24]" — This should be moved up in the third paragraph to follow a clear timeline.
 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The land commissioner committee, who consisted of" → "The land commissioner committee, which consisted of".
 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Burt did as was suggested to him on the faith he would get paid for his patent of such a valuable instrument." → "Burt did as was suggested believing that he would be compensated appropriately."
 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The inventor spent thousands of dollars to perfect his instrument, but only received back eighty dollars in compensation for his labors." — Compensation from?
  • "Key to Solar Compass and Surveyor's Companion published in 1858" → "Key to Solar Compass and Surveyor's (1858).
  • "A much better guide for the surveyor than the magnetic needle compass was desired." → "A more accurate guide for the surveyor than the magnetic needle compass was desired."
  • "Burt's diligent hard work, persistence and perseverance ultimately paid off in the invention of the Solar or Astronomical Compass." — This sounds promotional so either use the actual quote in "..." or simply mention "so the Solar or Astronomical Compass was created" and merge it with the previous sentence.
  • Details from the fourth paragraph should be mentioned in the final paragraph of this section. Lines such as "from the mid nineteenth century until well into the twentieth century it was mandatory for government surveying" and "a solar compass attachment to the surveyor's transit, was still the recommended method for obtaining the true north direction as instructed in the 1973 surveyor's manual of the US Bureau of Land Management" should come at the end of "History" for a proper flow of timeline.
  • Is it still used in the twenty-first century? If yes, mention that in a line or so at the very end. If not, mention what they use now instead.

Description of Burt's solar compass

[edit]
  • Title of this section should be "Description".

Principle of operation

[edit]
  • "Surveyors can locate true north by viewing the sun or other astronomical object like stars or the moon, which have a direction from any given point on the surface of the Earth which can be calculated precisely for a given date and time, and which is not influenced by local variations in the magnetic field due to local deposits of minerals such as iron ore." → "Surveyors can locate true north by viewing the sun or other astronomical object like stars or the moon, which have a direction from any given point on the surface of the Earth. It can be calculated precisely for a given date and time, and is not influenced by local variations in the magnetic field due to local deposits of minerals such as iron ore."
  • "direction by reference to the sun" → "in reference to the sun".
  • The third paragraph needs citations.
  • "To understand the functions of the parts of the solar compass, it is necessary to understand the apparent motion..." → "Application of the solar compass requires knowledge of the apparent motion..." Or something else, but it should not read like a guide.
  • Latter half of the fourth paragraph will require citations.
  • "This angle causes the altitude angle of the sun to vary with the seasons, by an amount which depends on the direction of the misalignment, and which varies predictably throughout the year, increasing and decreasing smoothly at a calculable rate, and is constant for everywhere on earth at the same time." — It is too long. Break it down into two sentences.
  • The fifth paragraph requires citations.
  • "from the rising sun to the setting sun." → "from the rising to the setting sun."
  • "The instrument has an equatorial movement, with a It also has a mechanical attachment for sighting a star as a reference." → "The instrument has an equatorial movement, with a mechanical attachment for sighting a star as a reference."

Construction of a typical model

[edit]
  • Title should be "Construction and operation".
  • Remove div command from the image description as a caption should begin from the left as it normally does.
  • "At one one end of the" → "At one end of the".

Awards

[edit]
  • Title of this section should be renamed to "Reception" or "Legacy". And praise it received when it was introduced, historical comments, and the impact it had should be talked about. "for its technology as being simple, rugged, inexpensive, reliable and accurate" from the "Lead" can be covered in here, along with that paragraph from "History". Reception is an important aspect for the "broad in its coverage" criteria of GA. As it is, it does not cover enough in this section.
  • "prize medal award" — can use just one of these words.
  • "He then received another medal by jurors of Astronomical Instruments." — when and for what?

References

[edit]
  • References use different date formats. Please use only one.
  • Reference 19 needs proper formatting.
  • Reference 26 and 29 need expansion with date, publisher, author, etc.
  • Reference 32 needs to be linked to its source in "Sources".

Sources

[edit]
  • This section seems to have sources that are not used as inline citation in the prose. If they are not used as inline citation and are not specific to the topic, please remove them. If they are not used for inline citation and are specific to the topic, a new section "Further reading" could be created and they could be moved there.

That should be all for now. It was a good read and it should pass. Thank you for all your work. — The Most Comfortable Chair 08:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doug Coldwell, just a clarification. This paragraph that you moved to "Reception" should be moved back to the Lead. What I suggested was that you keep the paragraph in the Lead, and expand upon its last line "It won awards from various organizations and was used by surveyors from the nineteenth into the twentieth century" in the "Reception" section. That way the Lead will have a brief summary of the "Reception" section and it will also help with expanding the "Reception" section. I appreciate your prompt efforts. Cheers. — The Most Comfortable Chair 13:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Thank you for your hard work, Doug Coldwell. You have done an amazing job! — The Most Comfortable Chair 12:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iron ore deposits

[edit]

The article brings up the magnetic compass accuracy issue (caused by iron ore deposits) way too many times. It is mentioned in the lead, brought up three times in the History section, and mentioned again in two later sections. I didn't know which ones would be the best to trim, so I am just bringing up the issue here. Thanks. Larry Hockett (Talk) 08:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issue addressed. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe I wasn't so clear. The issue is not the use of any specific word. It's that the same topic - the superiority of this device because it was free from interference from iron ore deposits - is mentioned in five or six places in this article. Larry Hockett (Talk) 10:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

[edit]

This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burt%27s_solar_compass&oldid=1200469824"