Jump to content

Talk:Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleElectrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 15, 2019Good article nomineeListed
June 12, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
October 18, 2020Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 3, 2019.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that telegraphy in the United Kingdom included a system that strung wires from rooftop to rooftop of domestic premises?
Current status: Good article


Non-integer number of failed companies

[edit]

Between 1846 and 1868 64 telegraph companies were formed. However, 68% of them failed... - that's 43.52 companies. catslash (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, but that's what the source says and I don't have an absolute number of failures to calculate a precise percentage. It could be 68.75% truncated (44 companies). SpinningSpark 23:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citing references

[edit]

So, User:Spinningspark it is not self evident that it is better to use the templates for citing references which link from the citation to the properly source. I thought it was and would advocate it. This article is an excellent piece of work, but why use such a limited and tedious way of handling citations and references? --TedColes (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to debate with you the pros and cons of different citation styles in general on this page. If I did, it would be a conversation that would have to be repeated over and over on multiple pages. The proper place to take that debate is to a policy page. If you succeed in getting it written into guidelines to prescribe citation templates, then I will start using them, or at least, not prevent anyone else from doing so. In the meantime, please respect WP:CITEVAR and MOS:STYLEVAR. The onus is not on me to defend the chosen style (although I'm tempted to write an essay), the onus is on you to present a rationale why this article in particular should be an exception to guidelines. SpinningSpark 22:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was only trying to be helpful, and acted in line with WP:BOLD. To me this is a matter of utility, not merely of style. --TedColes (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Scope creep (talk · contribs) 20:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Initial comments

[edit]

I have read the article 8 times now, the spelling is good, layout is good and coverage of content, having read up on it, seems fairly comprehensive at the moment. There is couple of things I have noticed that are not linked, from my own knowledge of the subject, but that can be done covered in appropriate section.

Prose

[edit]
Lede
[edit]
  • The nineteenth century in the opening sentence should be linked.
  • The second Electrical telegraphy is telegraphy over conducting wires - Duplicate link to telegraphy, an explanation of what is it would be more accurate and satisfying.
    • I don't understand the issue you raise of duplicate links. Electrical telegraph and Telegraphy are two separate articles. A definition of "electrical telegraphy" is given and the following sentence explains where this fits into the wider subject. If you are asking for a definition of telegraphy, its own article takes a lot of words to fully delimit it and I think that explanation is best given there. Remember, this article is three levels down from that topic; telegraphy → electrical telegraphy → electrical telegraphy in the UK. For comparison, Battle of Midway, a Featured Article, opens with The Battle of Midway was a decisive naval battle in the Pacific Theater of World War II... The authors did not feel the need to explain the meaning of either "Pacific Theatre" or "World War II". SpinningSpark 23:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. The hierarchy is important it doesn't provide an immediate understanding of the stage, the context for the reader.. I had a think about this last night. That rationale assumes that most people already know what "Pacific Theatre" or "World War II" is and they do. It is repeated ad nauseam on TV. Its almost a universal constant and that is the reason why its not defined. Electrical telegraph is not. Its byzantine, an ancient technology. It is worth noticing that definition of Telegram is not given. Nobody knows what it is either and certainly nobody under 55 would know. The last time I knew about a telegram being sent was in 1992. That was the only time. I didn't know what it was. To get to a definition of telegram, you must read a full half of the article, before you even finished reading the first paragraph of this article. If I was writing I would say something like this to set the context.
        • That is much clear with the additional component. The reader now know three component to bring it into existence. checkY
Electric telegraph is the transmission of a message called a Telegram using electrical signals sent across conducting wires between two participants. This is known as telegraphy.
It is a basic definition. Per your delimit comment, it might need more, but not much.
Sorry for breaking up your comment, but you have two entirely different points there. I am very surprised at your comments about this being little known, but as it is unfamiliar to you, you are unlikely to be the only one so I have tried to make it a little more explicit. If you are going to bring TV into it, just about every Western film ever made features a telegraph office or telegraph lines somewhere in it (see Breakheart Pass for instance). Numerous war films include people receiving telegrams. As for your comment on this being an "ancient technology", I would point out that the telegraph lasted much longer into the twentieth century than World War II so that rationale does not stand up. Obviously, you don't watch the right kind of films or read the right kind of books! By the way, not all telegraphy is sending telegrams - they are not synonyms. SpinningSpark 14:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On top of that you still have "telegraphy is telegraphy" in the top left. My eye is automatically drawn to it, when you start reading. What do you think? scope_creepTalk 12:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not say "telegraphy is telegraphy". It says Electrical telegraphy is telegraphy over conducting wires. I fail to see what is wrong with that. It is such a common construction that I would be very surprised if it was proscribed or deprecated in any style guide. At the risk of being accused of an OTHERSTUFF argument, numerous articles use this construction; "horse is a horse", "train is a train", "gun is a gun". Some quite contrived language would have to be used to avoid this simple construction. SpinningSpark 14:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've reworded it. SpinningSpark 11:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is now much clearer. checkY
  • Remove the the before radiotelegraphy.
    • The article matches the article in front of "optical telegraph". Both could be removed, but then the conjunction "that" seems out of place and would have to be changed to "which". This is a matter of taste, but I think it reads fine as it is. SpinningSpark 23:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still think it looks weird but minor. checkY
  • Francis Ronalds I notice on some names that you introduce them, e.g. the English scientist Francis Ronalds and some others aren't. I would suggest a small introduction for each person.
    • I don't agree with that, it would largely be distracting to the flow of text without any real benefit. In an article about British infrastructure, it is a fairly safe assumption that the people involved are largely British (in fact, they also are largely English) unless otherwise stated. It is very likely that people making technical innovations are engineers/inventors/scientists so no real need to say that either. All the important ones have their own articles if readers want to know more about them. As you point out, there are some exceptions, but I have only done this where it is particularly germane or surprising. For instance, I have given the background of William Mackenzie because it would otherwise be baffling to the reader what he was doing in Singapore and why his interest was medicine, not telegraphy. I'm willing to look at others on an individual basis. SpinningSpark 11:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't sure about that. I try and introduce them but always seem to end up with a mix bag at the end.scope_creepTalk 12:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again as their is a common nomenclature and doesn't become unbalanced. (edit conflict) checkY
  • Francis Ronalds first demonstrated a working telegraph over a substantial distance in 1816, but was unable to put it into use Is there no information on how long a distance? I would take out but was unable to put it into use unless you can provide an explanation.
  • William Fothergill Cooke, starting in 1836, developed the first commercial telegraph put into operation with the scientific assistance of Charles Wheatstone, the battery invented by John Frederic Daniell, and the relay invented by Edward Davy No linking txt together, seems to be dropped on the page, its a 3 or 4 clause sentence, I can see why but there no explanation of why a battery is needed.
    • Reads better. checkY
e.g. In 1836, the first commercial telegraph that built by William Fothergill Cooke with assistance of Charles Wheatstone, who together combined the battery invented by the English chemist John Frederic Daniell to provide power for the signal and the relay invented by English scientist Edward Davy to provide switching Something like that perhaps.
  • In 1846 the Electric Telegraph Company (the Electric), the world's first telegraph company, was formed by Cooke and financier John Lewis Ricardo.
Seems to be lot of commas. Could be something like In 1846 the worlds first telegraph company, called the Electric Telegraph Company (the Electric) was formed by Cooke and financier John Lewis Ricardo. That is just a suggestion. I'm not keen on a huge number of commas, mostly due to my English teacher in primary school telling me they means taking a breath. They do break up the flow.
There are actually only two commas, and some style gurus insist that a comma-interposed clause should be bracketed by commas at beginning and end. There is thus only one comma-delimited clause here. Note that a second comma is required in your construction just as much as it is needed in mine if that convention is followed. (Spinningspark)
I had a comment about this but I lost it in an edit conflict. I think as long as it cogent, applied equally across the article which it is and common nomenclature, it will be fine. Close this. checkY
  • Many competing companies arose; chief amongst them was the Magnetic Telegraph Company (the Magnetic) formed in 1850 I would remove chief its domain is people, not orgs. Change to something the most prominent or the largest
  • The Electric and Magnetic companies soon formed a cartel to control the market When? Within a year, two years, two months, two weeks?
    • Not essential information for the lead and in any case, I don't think we could put a date on it with any precsion. There was no formal agreement until 1865, but they were clearly cooperating to block competition long before this. It took the UKTC ten years to get off the ground (1850 to 1860) and the cartel was already putting legal obstacles in the way of its formation. 1850 was also when the Magnetic was formed, so cooperation started somehwere in that ten-year period. It was probably a gradual process of mutual understanding, but how much was written down in archives for modern historians to assess I couldn't say. SpinningSpark 14:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a reasonable explanation. I couldn't do better. checkY
  • bill to cost is done. checkY
  • Submarine telegraph cables You have started a new paragraph unrelated to the previous clause. It needs an introduction e.g. To enable transatlantic communications submarine telegraph cables were laid or To enable intercontinental signals/communication submarine telegraph cables were laid
  • Scottish military surgeon William Montgomerie This is the intro bit I was talking about above. You have introduced the person here.
  • Pender. Pender I would perhaps link these two sentences. entrepreneur I would suggest a change to businessman. I don't know if that would be in use.
    • Rather than link two sentences to make one rather long one, I've split off part of the previous sentence.
    • That is done and reads much better. checkY
On entrepreneur, I agree that modern concepts should not be imposed on historical events, but entrepreneur is not a modern concept, although it might have been modern then. Using a word that properly describes the concept is perfectly ok even if the word did not exist at the time, as long as the concept existed. If we limited ourselves to contemporary language only then Geoffrey Chaucer's page would be hard to read. In any case, it would appear that the word would have been known. The earliest citation in the OED is to 1762, and this book (reprint from 1863) says that the "modern" sense of the word is due to Jean-Baptiste Say (1767-1832). That's all well within the period we are discussing. Without doubt, it is right to describe Pender as an entrepreneur rather than a just a businessman. He was not running a shoe shop; he organised massive investments in some highly risky ventures on a scale only exceeded by the railways in that period. SpinningSpark 16:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is a well used word and well understood. It is minor. checkY
  • inland ?? were The second one, not needed. eat reduce is better.
    • It's hard to follow what your problem with "inland" is. It is being used in a perfectly normal sense for those companies doing business within Britain as opposed to companies running international submarine lines
      • Mostly because I don't understand it and it doesnt chime. Inland means the in the middle of the country. I would have used terrestrial. Unfortunately no other word for it, so it is either one. It is really minor but terrestrial more accurate and it is a geographic term.
"were", done checkY
"eats into" done. SpinningSpark 16:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC) checkY[reply]
  • The telegraph was never profitable under nationalisation because of government policies. Prices were held low to make it affordable to as many people as possible and the telegraph was extended to every post office issuing money orders, whether or not that office generated enough telegraph business to be profitable
Should it possibly not be: The telegraph was never profitable under nationalisation due to government policies that kept prices low to make it as affordable to as many people as possible as well as extending telegraph to every post office issuing money orders, whether or not that office generated enough business to be profitable The whole context is still telegraphing. Does it still have the same meaning?
It might have the same meaning, but it is a horribly long sentence and difficult for the reader to parse. I think a better solution is simply to semicolon splice the two sentences. SpinningSpark 16:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yip, it a huge and unbalanced compared to the other short sentenced. Semicolon would be ideal in that situation.
Yes. checkY scope_creepTalk 11:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • resource That is modern statement. important for military communications.. I don't know.
    • Pretty much the same response as with "entrepreneur". I'm confident that they talked a great deal about resources in both world wars. SpinningSpark 16:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Entrepreneur is a very specific meaning as a person who want create value as profit via a company. Resource is completely generic and I never use. When I started my career, HR used it to mean a group of folk, now it generic meaning is: a group of something. I saw go from a group of folk to group of computers, group of protocols, software dll's, group of configuration items and so on. You also see it software system to group non related items. Its not the correct word I would change it. scope_creepTalk 11:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Post Office Telecommunications was separated from the Post Office as British Telecom in 1981 to enable it to be privatised (which occurred in 1984) Reorder.
Early development
[edit]

This text on these sections have a much better flow.

  • surgeon Edward Davy I don't think he is a surgeon.
    • According to his article, he was certainly trained as a surgeon by profession but does not seem to have spent long practicing it. Kieve describes him as a surgeon, McDonald & Hunt describe him as a chemist (meaning pharmacist), Beauchamp describes him as a surgeon, Morus (not a source in this article, but in C&W article etc) describes him as a surgeon. I wouldn't want him doing a heart bypass on me, but there is plenty of grounds in sources for that description. SpinningSpark 17:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Davy began experimenting in telegraphy in 1835, demonstrated his telegraph system in Regent's Park in 1837 over a mile of copper wire,[7] and held an exhibition in London, but after his marriage broke down he abandoned telegraphy and emigrated to Australia
Split up the sentence. Davy began experimenting in telegraphy in 1835 and two years later demonstrated a telegraph system that used over a mile of copper wire in Regent's Park and this led to an exhibition in London. However after his marriage broke down he abandoned his experiments and emigrated to Australia Does it really need the marriage bit? It is muddled.
Split into two. I think the reason for Davy abandoning telegraphy is important. Some sources think Davy's system was very promising and he had a number of railway companies interested. Cooke and Wheatstone were worried enough to mount legal challenges and the ETC thought it important enough to buy up his patents to stop rivals from using them. His system could easily have become the leading system in the UK instead of C&W, so yes, his walking away was significant. SpinningSpark 10:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its better.checkY
  • Commas before and e.g. ,and. Grammerly states as it is two linking clauses the comma is not needed. I don't know what your thoughts are on it. I no longer put them in, as you don't breath at that point.
    • I try not to think about commas at all if I can help it (but see the quote from Lynne Truss on my user page!). Rules you learn at school (like the one about breathing) often turn out to be oversimplifications of the real world and not absolutes. Where "and" is a conjunction of two clauses, I don't think a commma is right except where it is used to put emphasis on the second clause (", and she had the cheek to criticise my hat) or avoid confusion. Where "and" marks the final item in a list, MOS:SERIAL does not either prescribe or proscribe a comma, but an article should be internally consistent. Americans have occasionally told me that they were taught in school that serial commas are mandatory, but this article is not in American English and that sounds like another school invented rule to me for the purpose of simplifying teaching. Where specifically do we have a problem in this article? SpinningSpark 11:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Cooke initially made a telegraph with a clockwork detent mechanism operating electromagnets Why? What is detent? Ive never heard of it.
    • Are you asking why he used clockwork? Not possible to ask him now being as he is dead, but he probably found mechanical systems much easier to understand than the new electrical technology. Clockwork was a very familiar technology and was adapted for all sorts of things in the Victorian age whereas electrical systems were entirely new. Detent is wikilinked for those that need an explanation. SpinningSpark 00:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lol. He made telegraph with clock mechanism that consisted of an arresting wheel that activated electromagnets. The second half of the sentence is not there, explaining why he was doing it. scope_creepTalk 14:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are asking me a question about Cooke's motives that I can't answer. Maybe he thought he could make money out of it. Or maybe he wanted the world to have a fast, easily accessed form of communication. Or maybe he just liked tinkering. I can give you my opinion on his motives, but without a source explicitly saying what was driving him, nothing can be written in the article. SpinningSpark 15:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • [1], [1] There is a fairly long discussion about it. scope_creepTalk 14:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Science Museum exhibit is Cooke's alarum, not his telegraph. Although related, the telegraph is necessarily more complicated. You seem to be requesting a deeper explanation of the device. I don't think that that is appropriate for this article, especially as it is not in the mainstream of telegraph development. SpinningSpark 15:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thats fine, but still doesn't make sense. It just stops. It states: The person who was the driving force in establishing the telegraph as a business in the United Kingdom was William Fothergill Cooke. He was initially inspired to build a telegraph after seeing a demonstration of a needle telegraph by Georg Wilhelm Muncke in March 1836. He built a prototype shortly afterwards, but did not pursue this design.[9] Instead, he looked for mechanical solutions because he believed that the needle telegraph would require multiple wires, each driving a separate needle.[10] Cooke initially made a telegraph with a clockwork detent mechanism operating electromagnets then it is The first mechanical apparatus was built in 1836 If it was cooke that built the first mechanical apparatus, then the previous sentence should something like: Cooke initially made a telegraph with a clockwork detent mechanism operating electromagnets but was unsuccessful. It essentially comes to a halt and then moves onto another subject, which is the first mechanical apparatus.
            • Is the problem here that you think the clockwork mechanism and the mechanical telegraph are two different things? They're not. If that's the problem I'll try to clarify it. SpinningSpark 17:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • No its not that. Looking at it: He built a prototype. Looking looked for mechanical solutions as thing needed multiple wires. He built a telegraph.
It states Cooke initially made a telegraph with a clockwork detent mechanism operating electromagnets ... that was unsuccessful. Initially suggest the beginning of something and something to follow. That bit, something to follow is missing. That section doesn't gell. I'll take a look at the sources and see what say as I can't heed or tail of it. scope_creepTalk 23:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He made a clockwork mechanical system, unsuccessfully pitched it to the railways, then abandoned it in favour of needles after scientific advice. The basic facts are quite clear, you don't need to look in the sources. No doubt my description needs some work, but it is all in sources. I am still struggling a bit to understand the problem. The bit that follows the initial mechanical system is the needle telegraph system. SpinningSpark 09:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ William Fothergill Cooke (21 March 2013). Extracts from the Private Letters of the Late Sir W. F. Cooke: Relating to the Invention and Development of the Electric Telegraph. Cambridge University Press. p. 66. ISBN 978-1-108-05274-0. Retrieved 2 September 2019.
Then it should be Cooke initially made a telegraph with a clockwork detent mechanism operating electromagnets then abandoned it in favour of needles after scientific advice or Cooke initially made a telegraph with a clockwork detent mechanism operating electromagnets then abandoned it after scientific advice
That suggestion is putting things out of historical order again. This edit was made to put the events in historical order as a result of the point raised below. The original version was actually much closer to what you are now asking for. Can I ask you to revisit that version which may be a better starting point. SpinningSpark 22:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is really decent of you to rewrite the section. I did have quite a substantial paragraph laid but I had a look at some sources and it seems to reflect the structure you have already. I think the work shouldn't be here, but in the Cooke article, which is sadly lacking. When taken in light what I have read it and the linking in section context, for want of a word, it seems to ok. I still don't like the way it is structured, but at least the reasons for it and once the Cooke article is updated I will be better. Close it. checkYscope_creepTalk 17:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cooke had initially been inspired to build a telegraph after seeing a demonstration of a needle telegraph Inspired. Ok sentence but why is mentioned now when it is already stated built a device and spoke to people.
  • The first success came in 1838 when a five-needle telegraph was installed by the Great Western Railway from Paddington station to West Drayton and used on the stations between Paddington and West Drayton
  • A flat rate of one shilling was charged regardless of message length, unlike later pricing schemes, but many people paid this just to see the strange equipment I would unlike later pricing schemes It is very early days and they wouldn't have known their pricing or what the real price should be for profitability, so no real comparison could be made with future price plans.
Telegraph companies
[edit]
Electric Telegraph Company
[edit]
  • Electric Telegraph Company (ETC) In the lede you were calling it the the Electric. Should there be a common nomenclature?
    • This is a difficult one that I don't think I have a complete solution to, or at least, if I do, I haven't implemented it very well. I want to say somewhere that the names of the Electric and the Magnetic were counterposed to each other in that abbreviated way, and I guess the lead is actually demonstrating that comparison directly. I've generally used ETC in the bulk of the article to avoid frequent repetitions of the full name. I don't want to use Electric, partly because its possible to confuse with other companies who have Electric in their name when not talking in the context of the Magnetic/Electric duopoly, and partly because a major source, Kieve, uses ETC. Although even he occassionaly slides into the alternative term. Another issue is that I would like to be consistent and use initials for the Magnetic as well, but their change of name makes that difficult without being either confusing or inaccurate. Using the full name of the Electric throughout might be a solution, but they had a name change also in 1854, so there is no easy answer to this. SpinningSpark 21:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that some sentences are very short. I suspect that is possibly to give space for the reference number, e.g.The ETC bought out Wheatstone's patent interest in exchange for royalties.[32] They also acquired Davy's relay patent.[33] This is logically one sentence.
  • The wayleaves gave the ETC exclusive use It is muddled. Wayleaves is not an entity, it is a byelaw. I don't think it can be spoken about in the first person. I can't make sense of it.
    • You've confused me as well now. First of all, a wayleave is not a byelaw. It is a right granted to an entity to enter the property of another. In the modern era, wayleaves most often refer to rights granted in statute law to a utility company, but wayleaves can also be granted by private companies or individuals. Here we are talking about wayleaves granted by one private company (a railway company) to another private company (a telegraph company) as a private agreement. I'm also struggling to understand in what context you think this is first person. It certainly isn't grammatically. SpinningSpark 12:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you not say something like The railways gave exclusive use of the wayleaves to the ETC, shutting out competitors from the most economic way of building a telegraph network.

checkY scope_creepTalk 17:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The ETC remained by far the largest telegraph company until nationalisation Is that in Britain or Europe?
    • The context of this article is telegraphy in the UK so I don't think there is a need to explicitly state that. But to answer your question, Siemens may have been a bigger company, but I have no figures to hand on that so not sure. However, that is not a valid comparison for two reasons. Firstly, by the time of UK nationalisation, Siemens was no longer just a telegraph company. They made many other things and telegraphy may even not have been the majority of their business. Secondly, the continental companies, including Siemens, were not companies running there own telegraph service as the British companies did. They were suppliers of equipment and services to state-run telegraph services. SpinningSpark 22:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Magnetic Telegraph Company
[edit]
  • The Magnetic finally succeeded in 1853, allowing Ireland telegraphic connection for the first time to Britain and to mainland Europe Slightly muddled. Possibly In 1853 the Magnetic finally succeeded in connecting Ireland to Britain and mainland Europe with a telegraphic connection.
  • That was the British Electric Telegraph Company (BETC, later to change its name to the British Telegraph Company to avoid confusion with the ETC[51]) founded in 1849 I would split this as the, founded in 1849 is hanging off the end of the sentence. It is confusing on several reads. Something like That was the British Electric Telegraph Company (BETC) that was founded in 1849. It had to later change its name to the British Telegraph Company to avoid confusion with the ETC[51]..
  • The whole ETC, BETC nomenclature is very confusing. From The to reference 57 is muddled. I can't understand the section at all. I'll stop here, for fresh reading tommorrow. It not clear at all. It makes more sense now. scope_creepTalk 12:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
London District Telegraph Company
[edit]
  • The area of the District was to be within four miles of Why was? The area of the District only encompassed an area less than four miles from Charing Cross, with a plan to later expand it to twenty miles.
United Kingdom Telegraph Company
[edit]


  • Act in 1862 Is it not possible to find the act. They are all online now or to give it a name?
    • Probably could be found but I've played this game before and it's not so easy. I don't believe the statutes are online prior to 1988 (if you know different, let me know where). There are tables and indices on gbooks, but they are hard to interpret and often omit the private bills. I don't think it's tremendously beneficial to have it; there were many such Acts concerning telegraph companies and if we have one, why not have them all? These are primary sources and for Wikipedia we need the secondary sources to interpret their significance, which we already have. SpinningSpark 12:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Universal Private Telegraph Company
[edit]

Thats ok scope_creepTalk 15:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Profitability
[edit]
  • The UKTC had come late to the party May be better as as a late competitor
    • This is somewhere I fundamentally disagree with the practice of many Wikipedia copyeditors. Flattening all colourful phrases into boring blandness does not make for the "brilliant prose" that FA talks about. It is not POV, it is not unclear, and it is not against guidelines. Flat language does not make the article memorable or interesting. I daresay someone will remove it eventually (they always do), but I'm not going to do it. SpinningSpark 14:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't have a thing about florid or colourful language and I never meant it in that context as this is my first review, but the correct word is competition. That's the only thing companies do between themselves unless one of them is a charity (NGO). I agree with fact about flattening it into boring language, tell me about it. Pisses me off severely sometimes but its your call. scope_creepTalk 17:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • agreeing a common price structure, thus destroying their original business model agreeing a common price structure that eventually destroyed their original business model
  • 1s You refer to one shilling rate above. Should that not convert all the writing as opposed to numerics, e.g. as 1 shilling instead of 1s. 1/6d Might be worth changing it to one and a half shillings.
    • I think that at the point any amount other than whole shillings is introduced it is necessary to start using Lsd nomenclature. It can be introduced earlier if you like, but it can't be omitted. I don't like the idea of using some ahistorical bastardised system of our own devising with decimal shillings. Alternatively, we could state all amounts in words (one shilling and sixpence). SpinningSpark 14:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1/6d Is there a conversion for this. It is one and a half shillings.
    • Is that not the same point as above? SpinningSpark 14:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Different standard of presentation across different parts of the article dependent on the source of information. If it was ship article convert template to equalise it all across the article but I don't know if such a thing exists for old money. I'll post a help question to try and make it easier for the reader.
        • No, that was just never done. As I said above, it's ahistorical. Americans never understood this system when it was current. Fat chance of getting them to understand it now however easy you try to make it. SpinningSpark 17:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have left a help request. Somebody else must have faced a similar problem.
            • User:John of Reading has come back with {{Pounds, shillings, and pence}} template. It converts the pre-1971 subunits of Pound Sterling to its modern decimal subunits. What's your thoughts? The template has never been used, potentially indicating its not well liked. It can convert based on a flag to pence and that would be my ideal situation. That would rationalise the whole article down to modern pence as a standard value, making the value understandable by the majority of the UK population.
              • Personally, I think conversions of all sorts in any article are clutter that gets in the way of the flow of the text. But I can see that this is likely to keep coming up so I'll give way on it. I don't think that templates are necessary, it is easy enough to convert manually, and too many templates clutter the edit window making editing more of a chore than it needs to be. SpinningSpark 22:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
News service
[edit]
Submarine cables
[edit]
  • The solution came with gutta-percha, a natural latex from certain trees in the Far East The ideal material came with the discovery of a natural latex from the gutta-percha (Palaquium) tree in the Far East




  • In 1844–5 he tested, probably short lengths, of cable in Swansea Bay In 1844-1845 Wheatstone tested short lengths of cable in Swansea Bay. Was it short lengths? link Swansea Bay.
Cable manufacturing companies
[edit]
  • The rival India Rubber, Gutta Percha and Telegraph Works Company was founded in 1864 as an offshoot of S. W. Silver and Co. of [Silvertown]] There seems to be new context. Their main competitor was the India Rubber, Gutta Percha and Telegraph Works Company that was founded in Silvertown, London in 1864 as an offshoot of the clothiers and outfitters S. W. Silver and Co..
    • You seem to be introducing new stuff there that is not from the sources. I'm not at all sure about "main competitor". The Gutta Percha Co was taken over by Telcon in the same year as India Rubber was formed, so if they were the main competitor, it was not for long. It seems to me that they had more problems from an internal split company in West Ham (later absorbed into Silver's company). If we are going to talk about Silver's activities, we need to add a source for that (won't be hard to find). The germane thing here is that they made waterproof clothing, the reason they were interested in these rubber materials. SpinningSpark 10:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • These were not very successful, they were easily damaged and some attempts to lay cables failed because they would not sink Should be something in context like, Using only the insulation was not successful as they were easily damaged and some attempts to lay cables failed due to them not sinking
  • The construction found to work well was to twist the cable cores together, bind with tarred hemp, wind tarred cord around the whole group of cores, and then protect the assembled cores with iron wires twisted around them The method of construction that was found to work well...
    • Why is that better? It is less succinct, adding more words without adding additional information. SpinningSpark 11:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • A construction is final event so you always the method of construction. Your performing an action which is a method.
Ocean cable companies
[edit]
  • After several failed attempts, the Brett's company, the Submarine Telegraph Company (STC), succeeded in connecting to France in 1851 After several failed attempts, the Brett's company known as the Submarine Telegraph Company (STC) finally succeeded in connecting to France in 1851
  • From about 1857 the Magnetic had an agreement with them that all their submarine cables were to be used only with the landlines of the Magnetic were only to be connected.
    • "Connected" is wrong. In all probability, direct connections between stations in England and France didn't happen much, if at all. The cable company employed operators to retransmit the messages, not just because of the distance involved, but because the codes used in the two countries were different. Morse did not become the international standard until 1865, and neither country was using it in this period (1850s). Automatic code converters were beyond the capabilities of the technology available. SpinningSpark 17:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • the Red Sea to India cable in 1859 laid by the Red Sea & India Company It is worth mentioning why it was failure. Is that the Indian Mutiny?
I've changed the requested quote template above, I'm assuming that was a typo. No, the failure had nothing to do with the Indian Mutiny, but the fact that the urgent request for help from India had taken forty days to arrive in London had everything to do with the British Government prematurely placing a contract for the Red Sea cable before properly analysing the reasons for failure of the Atlantic cable. The Red Sea cable failed in multiple places for multiple technical reasons, all boiling down to not yet having a full understanding of what was needed for really long, deep ocean cables. A little more might be said here, but only in general terms, it's a story in itself and could go way off topic for this article. SpinningSpark 17:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's done. Much clearer. checkY scope_creepTalk 14:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

checkY scope_creepTalk 21:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • shorter distance in ocean muddled.
    • Do you have a suggestion? SpinningSpark 18:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kind of makes sense when you read the paragraph and that is how it is structured. checkY
    • The 25 nautical miles of the English Channel cable was a long cable. Likewise the Irish Sea cable. This was a cable on a whole different scale, orders of magnitude longer. We need something to differentiate it. I know really is an overused word often unnecessarily inserted (but surprisingly not in WP:WTW) but in this case we need something more than the bare adjective. SpinningSpark 22:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you need clarify what was considered a long cable possibly linked in section how difficult it was, possibly. If it order of magnitude the reader needs to know.
        • Well here's the issue, there is no official definition of "really long" like there is for very high frequency or extra low voltage. The article is clearly saying that 1,450 miles was really long, a claim supported by the source. The reader can assume from that that no other cable anywhere near this length was in use up to that time since the article says that this was the first, also supported by the source. For us to put an arbitrary figure on it would be WP:SYNTH. I don't think it's truly needed, but I've added "...many times longer than any other submarine cable at that time" which I hope addresses your concern. SpinningSpark 13:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's fine. checkY scope_creepTalk 14:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Falmouth was originally intended as the landing site in England, but in the event, the tiny village of Porthcurno became the largest submarine cable station in the world after numerous other cables were landed there muddled.


Maintenance and technical problems
[edit]
  • This solution is not open to submarine cables and the very long distances maximise the problem Seem to be unlinked concept. Muddled possibly. Seems to be first person.
    • The two things are linked in that it is this combination (need for insulation and long distance) that make the problem severe for submarine cables. This is the second time you have used "first person" in a sense I don't understand. SpinningSpark 18:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your using This and is not rather than The solution was not meaning in first person. I can't understand the sentence at the moment. I'll read it tomorrow. scope_creepTalk 22:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have made two changes in your example text, neither of which is a change of person. Both constructions are third person. A first person construction would be "my solution is..." or "our solution was..." The first change is replacing the determiner this with the definite article the. Determiners fill the same grammatical place as articles and are perfectly acceptable to use in formal writing. In this case, the meaning of the determiner is wikt:this#Determiner sense #2. That is, indicating the solution just mentioned. Using an article is less clear to the reader what solution is being discussed. The other change is a change of tense, replacing the present tense is with the past tense was. The present tense is not incorrect, the solution can no more be done now than it could then. Further, the preceding sentences are also in present tense so a change in this sentence would look odd and be confusing. You may possibly have been referring to active voice and passive voice, but both constructions are active voice and it would be awkward to recast in the passive voice. SpinningSpark 15:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • It makes a kind of sense but I find even now that it is step change from the previous sentence when you read it. It doesn't chime but the detail is definitely there. checkY scope_creepTalk 17:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Employment of women
[edit]
  • early on No date or decade perhaps
  • 3d a day Nobody know what it is and doesn't compare on the same scale. On the first scale your a week. On this sentence per day. And you have also changed from shillings to d's meaning pennies. Working seven days a week, it would 1.75 shillings per week.
Public take up
[edit]
  • The ability of the telegraph was first brought to the attention of a wider public on 6 August 1844 when the birth of Alfred Ernest Albert to Queen Victoria was reported in The Times only 40 minutes after it was announced. The ability of the telegraph to deliver news to a wide audience was first brought to the attention of the public on 6 August 1844 when the birth of Alfred Ernest Albert to Queen Victoria was reported in The Times only 40 minutes after it was announced
  • later price control under nationalisation later price controls after nationalisation' nationalisation should be linked about somewhere. Multiple price controls.
Nationalisation
[edit]
  • A more surprising, and more influential, advocate was John Ricardo, free trade campaigning Member of Parliament, railway entrepreneur, banker, and cofounder of the ETC Bit of a comma overkill. A surprising and influential advocate was the Member of Parliament John Ricardo who co-founded the ETC. Ricardo was a free trade campaigner as well as a railway entrepreneur and banker. I know you should avoid two links together, but some articles need to link to it.

checkY 19:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Telegraph Act 1868
[edit]

SpinningSpark 11:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • The solution arrived at, in a great hurry and afterwards admitted to be not ideal, was to purchase Reuter's cables and lease them back to the STC, together with other continental cables acquired by the Post Office. A bit muddled. In a great hurry the government arrived at a what they considered an imperfect solution and that was purchase Reuter's cables and lease them back to the STC, together with other continental cables acquired by the Post Office
Aftermath
[edit]

Coolio. scope_creepTalk 13:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post Office Telegraphs
[edit]
  • Comment That's a solid chapter.
Unionisation
[edit]
  • In 1868 Charles Monk got In 1868 Charles Monk introduced ... that became law. In the next sentence I see. In 1868 Charles Monk introduced a private member's bill in parliament that would extend the vote to Post Office workers and other civil servants. Link to voting.
    • A lot of additional text with no additional information. "Voting" is an everyday word understood by most readers in context. SpinningSpark 18:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please take a look at the voting article. That is the UK process. Sure it is better than got through parliament. You have already got the It became in law in the second sentence. So it is In 1868 Charles Monk introduced a private member's bill through parliament which is the genuine parliamentary nomenclature.
        • I've made the change from got → introduced, but sorry, voting is not a sensible thing to link. Everybody knows what it is, it has no special relation to this article, and the voting article is not even specific to the UK. Did you read OVERLINK? In particular the bit about 2/3 of links on Wikipedia not even clicked once? SpinningSpark 22:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've not read OVERLINK, somebody spoke to me about years ago and by now it seems to be common sense. I wouldn't link it in similar situation. I think it is a pity though. Some common article are often exceedingly different to what you think they're going to be. That's fine. checkYscope_creepTalk 19:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exchange Telegraph Company
[edit]

Is this not in the wrong location?

I don't think so. First of all, Extel was not a general telegraph company offering a telegraph service to the public, rather, it was a news service that happened to use telegraph technology. Secondly, it wasn't doing much during the companies period, only becoming important in the nationalisation period (probably suppressed by the companies news monopoly). And thirdly, this is where the Kieve source puts it, who similarly devotes a section of the book to the companies and a section to the Post Office era. After all, British Telecom became a telegraph company when it was privatised, but it wouldn't be sensible to describe it under the earlier section. SpinningSpark 08:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. checkY scope_creepTalk 12:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Competition from the telephone
[edit]
  • You a kind of introduction to William Preece, Post Office Chief Electrician (chief engineer) Does it need it or it provided by the references?
    • Preece was an important figure in the Post Office and I think we should say who he was. Looking at the article, He is mentioned surprisingly little. He had a long running feud with Heaviside (who considered him a technical incompetent – and I kind of agree with Heaviside). His refusal to listen to Heaviside's ideas on loading seriously delayed development of long lines in telephony and gave the Americans the lead. Perhaps we should mention Preece was behind the Post Office rejection in the passage on loading. SpinningSpark 11:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There then followed the founding of a string of private telephone companies; the Telephone Company had the rights to Alexander Graham Bell's patent and the Edison Telephone Company had the rival patents of Thomas Edison, the two later merging as the United Telephone Company (UTC) Split this giant sentence. You could start with There then followed the founding of a string of private telephone companies.
  • Lancashire & Cheshire No mentioned of the Lancashire & Cheshire anywhere.
    • No reason why there needs to be. This is the story of telegraphy, not of telephony. We only need to talk about the telephone companies as significant competition to the telegraph, the suppression of telephone companies by the Post Office to support telegraphy, and their final acceptance of telephony in favour of telegraphy once they had control of it. SpinningSpark 17:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it is just bit rough just to plump them down without some explanation, particularly when National and Lancashire & Cheshire isn't linked, just out the blue. Also National Telephone Company was created in 1881. So it should be into the instead of as the
        • No sorry, you can't cite dates from another Wikipedia article, especially as it is unsourced. Kieve presents it as three companies merging into a completely new company. Sure, The National name is carried through to the new company, but we need to go with the sources here. This book presents it in exactly the same way, with the same date, and with equally little information on the L&C. What exactly is it you want to say about this company, do you have a source for it, and what relevance is it to telegraphy. SpinningSpark 17:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is a mismatch between the articles and is out of scope. According to [1] it is called the Lancashire and Cheshire Telephone Exchange Company. The National is the National Telephone Company Ltd. Is it possible give them their full names. That will give the reader a nod that they are telephone companies. scope_creepTalk 19:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Railway block signalling
[edit]
News service
[edit]
  • 1s, 2d again. I've not looked at your comment above but it might putting a small glossary in. I think this has been fixed. Already done.
  • 60/80 could this be 60 to 80
Military
[edit]

Fine.scope_creepTalk 23:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorology
[edit]
Emergency services
[edit]
Automation
[edit]
  • Because traffic. As traffic
    • Too easy to misread the meaning of as in that context. SpinningSpark 16:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to the grammar rules in a formal written article it is not ideal. Informal, but for starting it with conjunction isn't particularly readable. How about converting Because traffic was declining in the 1920s, it was not worthwhile to automate many less busy lines into Traffic was declining in the 1920's because it was not worthwhile to automate many less busy lines. That puts the conjunction where it should be.
        • First of all, the word as in this context is just as much a conjuntion as because, see wikt:as#conjunction. Secondly, the claim that beginning a sentence with a conjunction is informal is usually said in the context of a coordinating conjunction (and, or, etc) where the clause being coordinated with is in the previous sentence or missing altogether. In this sentence, because is a subortinating conjunction and both clauses are in the same sentence. This is yet another rule used by teachers to improve the writing of children that has been inappropriately broadened out by unqualified self-appointed pedants into a universal proscription. There is no basis for this in any major style guide, let alone the MOS. The MLA Style Manual is widely used in scholarly writing. The MLA Style Center says ...it is not incorrect. They cite Oxford Dictionaries saying ...you’re not being ungrammatical. Merriam-Webster] says It's perfectly acceptable to begin a sentence with "And," Nunerous other style blogs say much the same thing eg [2][3][4]. Many writers of great stature have used this construction; I could quote Shakespeare at length if you like. And by the way, your suggestion has the clauses entirely the wrong way round. SpinningSpark 17:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The code used was the Baudot code, invented by Émile Baudot. The code used was the Baudot code that was invented by Émile Baudot It should really to be accurate as you have a code and an action. The Baudot code that invented by Émile Baudot was used to encode to message.
    • I think that construction just makes it clunky with unnecessary words. SpinningSpark 16:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apparently it is not enciphering code but it an action and you have mentioned code twice. I think it is worth it and makes much more sense as the code encodes, its the concomitant adjective. The Baudot code that invented by Émile Baudot was used to encode the message..
        • We don't need to tell the reader that a code is used to encode messages. That is almost a truism. Do we really need to hack this sentence around just to comply with the arbitrary non-rule of not using the same word twice in a sentence? And what "action" are you talking about? Neither use of code is a verb in this sentence. SpinningSpark 16:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decline and recovery
[edit]
World War II
[edit]
  • The Italian navy then cut the five British telegraph cables from Gibraltar to Malta and two of the five going on from Malta to Alexandria. The Italian navy then cut the five British telegraph cables connecting Gibraltar to Malta and two of the five connecting Malta to Alexandria.
Telegrams
[edit]
Telex and private wires
[edit]
Summary
[edit]

Hi @Spinningspark: There are three entries left and it is completed for prose. scope_creepTalk 15:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is four entries. Take a look and see what you think. scope_creepTalk 15:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please mark the items that still need attention with a graphic, or else break them out here. SpinningSpark 21:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This one is the only one remaining: From about 1857 the Magnetic had an agreement with them that all their submarine cables were to be used only with the landlines of the Magnetic Is it possible to put something like : From about 1857 the Magnetic had an agreement with them that all messages sent on all their submarine cables had to be retransmitted onto the landlines of the Magnetic It makes it much longer and gives the reader an idea of what happening without a three sentence explanation. scope_creepTalk 18:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about that for a long time (partially forcibly because my computer crashed and its taken all day to get it back up) and finally decided I don't want to do that. If we say that incoming telegrams have to be forwarded to the Magnetic, that could leave readers with the mistaken impression that other companies could send outgoing international telegrams via the STC, or at least, leave it unclear. So we would have to separately make a statement about outgoing telegrams as well. I think that is a lot of complication for what is really a very simple situation – STC agreed to work only with the Magnetic in the UK. SpinningSpark 16:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool. scope_creepTalk 17:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Spinningspark: I found the full names for the Lancashire and Cheshire. I don't know what you want to do with it. scope_creepTalk 10:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that already done? SpinningSpark 16:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is much better. Prose is 99% better than it was so that is it done. scope_creepTalk 17:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS

[edit]

That seems to be section finished. I couldn't identify any particular caveats. Hi @Spinningspark: have I made any mistakes in this section. I think it passes. scope_creepTalk 19:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Layout

[edit]

I have done a frequency analysis on the references, I will post it in the next couple of days. They are not standard. scope_creepTalk 23:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Spinningspark: I noticed your not using the sfn template nor named refs. What was the reason for this and does it really matter for this? I have checked the ref's, there is about 14-18 (I lost the document) duplicate references. Would not be better to use named refs in that instance? scope_creepTalk 21:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Citation templates are evil. Bundling: see this discussion and this one. Unless there is something specific about this article in particular, these are not GA issues and should be taken to a policy discussion venue. SpinningSpark 22:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lets get started. scope_creepTalk 16:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: There is about 18 duplicate references. Do you want to use ref tags i.e <nowiki>[2]</nowki> format, to remove the duplicates. I've read the first essay. I did have a pages worth of response, with several reasons why your approach is wrong and essentially statist, but didn't think this was the right venue. scope_creepTalk 15:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't, for the reasons given in the previous discussions. You are right, this is not the right venue. I have no idea why you are calling me statist, but I think I'll choose to take it as a compliment rather than a personal attack. SpinningSpark 16:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources

[edit]

Very good sources. All publishers checked. Close this. scope_creepTalk 16:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Broadness

[edit]

I think in term broadness of sources, it is successful. I think you have very wide coverage and its fine. scope_creepTalk 22:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]
  1. Image of the ABC telegraph. Can you please update caption to An ABC telegraph instrument from the General Post Office era, dated 1885 or combination thereof.
    It is written on the case. scope_creepTalk 19:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Done SpinningSpark 21:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Image of motorcycle rider. OK
  3. 8 miles of wire. ok.
  4. Cooke ok.
  5. Cooke and Wheatstone five-needle telegraph. Can you update this to Cooke and Wheatstone five-needle telegraph from 1837
  6. Cooke and Wheatstone single-needle instrument. ok.
  7. Henley-Foster two-needle telegraph. Can you update this to Henley-Foster two-needle telegraph from 1875
    • That is not an actual instrument, it is a drawing from a periodical article. The publication is dated 1875, but that does not mean the drawing represents something from 1875. In all likelihood, none of these equipments were left in service by that date. SpinningSpark 21:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Caption didn't inform me of that. I wouldn't have known if you hadn't told me. You'll need to explain. scope_creepTalk 21:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It is self-evidently a drawing. Where it wss first published is not very important for the reader's understanding. SpinningSpark 22:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't have guessed that in a months of Sunday's, its weird. scope_creepTalk 22:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Right that fine. Thinking of the wrong image. ok. Close. scope_creepTalk 23:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Telcon cable works at Greenwich. Can you update to Telcon cable works at Greenwich circa 1865–66
  9. The nondescript hut where the Porthcurno cables were landed. ok.
  10. The equipment inside the Porthcurno hut. ok.
  11. British telegraph All Red Line global network in 1902.
    • Is there an issue with this one? SpinningSpark 21:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't like the original image as it seems be coloured by the paper, cheap paper or possibly artificially coloured. I saw the original or what seemed the original, in white with red lettering, colouring. I think would be closer to what it would be, as it would only be the purview of senior management. I had a look, but there is no public domain image available with those routes in detail in white, that I can see. Apart from that long winded explanation, its ok. scope_creepTalk 22:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you're right that the yellowing is fake. It seems to have come from the Internet Archive and they do that with a lot of their old books. I'll get it cleaned up, but that may not happen in the timescale of this GA. I don't know what you mean by "...that long winded explanation." The caption currently reads British telegraph All Red Line global network in 1902. Which part of that caption do you think is unnecessary and can be removed? SpinningSpark 13:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Lord Kelvin, gave the first mathematical description of retardation. ok.
  13. Hugh Childers. Hugh Childers 1878 may be useful.
  14. William Preece, 1904. ok
  15. Lord Rothermere, 1914
  16. Punched paper tape as used for Baudot-Murray code messages. This is not ok. Very modern punched tape image and description is wide of the mark. It was used computing up to the 1970's. An other image would ideal if it is available.
    • Punched tape did not significantly change over the period it was used, but I think user:Ted Coles should justify this image as he put it in the article. It replaced the image I originally added File:Baudot Tape.JPG. The section in the article is mostly discussing the 1930s, and I'll use a 1930s image if one can be found, but tape from the 1970s really isn't any different. SpinningSpark 22:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TedColes: repinging because there is a typo in the first one. SpinningSpark 22:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think its changed for decades. I've seen paper tape from the 40 and 50's and it wasn't as clean cut as that and a lot thinner and dirtier. Either that or its tape from the image has been sitting in the cupboard for 50 years and is now new old stock, sorta. scope_creepTalk 23:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you have pictures of your dirty tape from the 1940s? If you do, we might be able to use it. If you don't, there is no point talking about it—the choices are to use one of the images we have or have no image at all. You didn't say what you thought of the alternative image I linked above. Baudot-Murray code was still in use in odd corners as late as the 1970s, and the tape used looked identical to these pictures. SpinningSpark 13:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • No unfortunately. I wish I some of it, used, as it is deeply cool. The stuff I saw was in box in an old building that was being repurposed in the mid 1980's. It had been sitting there for donkeys, including old tapes, disk unit, terminals, old workstations, screen, old mainframe bits, all sorts of weird and wonderful kit and it all went in the bin as there was no value seen in it, unlike now. I was in a computer club in school and has a chance to look it. scope_creepTalk 14:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Close it for the moment. scope_creepTalk 15:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • The previous picture was of a very tatty and probably unreadable piece of tape that appeared to have been fan-folded. As far as I know fan-folding of tape was only used by Digital Equipment Corporation with 8-hole tape. I don't know of any evidence to suggest that tape as in the replacement illustration is not identical to the tape in use when Baudot-Murray coded tape was first introduced. Illustrations in old telegraphy books are drawings. Given the world-wide use of telegraphy in the early 20th century, and the success of five-hole tape as a storage medium, a change in the form of tape would have required a very good reason and one that would have been mentioned in the histories of telegraphy, but I can find none.--TedColes (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's fine, the work has shown the format has pretty much stayed the same for decades. I think we can put it down an illusion to a fading memory. Close it. scope_creepTalk 08:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • @TedColes: I'm not convinced that that tape is fan-folded, especially as we don't know of any fan-folded 5-hole applications. I think it has just been scrunched up. Also, I don't think that "tatty" is a disadvantage for the image in the context of this article – it gives the impression of age. But I'll go along with your choice of image if you don't agree. SpinningSpark 12:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • @scope_creep. The thickness (0.1mm) and weight (75 to 90 gsm) of modern tape are given in this book. Similar figures in inches are given in this source. That is about the same weight as typical copier paper. I doubt that historic tape was ever made much thinner than that, it would be too weak to run through high speed tape readers. SpinningSpark 12:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • I suspect fan folding was used to enable it to be archived quickly. I don't think it was fan-folded. It was a tape I saw. It wasn't folded. I think it would very hard to find an image from that time as the material was disposable and very easy to get rid of. There is really only two instances of when that kind of stuff becomes available that I've seen. One is a computer museum or possibly a transport museum, or an industry which has been under heavy regulation for decades, e.g. the UK electrical generating companies and then subsequently deregulated. They throw their old kit out for new. I have seen that in the UK when I worked at an outfit in the late 90's that worked in that area. I would use a caveat, stick with the image you have until something else turns up. It is a good image, its in focus, its clear and represents the subjects well. I would date it to 1970, or c. scope_creepTalk 15:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Post Office telegram messenger motorcycle. Ok. Change the circa to 'c.' only
  18. Female telegram messenger during World War I. ok
  19. Telegraph messengers collecting telephone messages for bombed-out telephone subscribers at an emergency telephone bureau. Change to Telegraph messengers collecting telephone messages for bombed-out telephone subscribers at an emergency telephone bureau 1942
  20. Valentines Day Greetings Telegram. Should that not be St Valentines Day Greetings Telegram Seems to the saint who started. Ok.
  21. Can you put a full stop at the end of each caption. Thanks.

Hi @Spinningspark: I have reviewed the images. scope_creepTalk 13:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charts and diagrams

[edit]

Hi @Spinningspark:. Now that images are done, I notice there is no chart or diagram in the article, e.g. detailing growth rate of each company, or details the growth in miles of cable put in. I several charts that may have been useful, but they've lost. I found this, e.g;[3] scope_creepTalk 15:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you raise this on the article talk page separately from this GA? I don't think anything can be done immediately. A good source for those kind of figures is Kieve which I had on inter-library loan, but it has now gone back. Roberts also has some information. However, there is a big issue here with stitching together numbers from disparate sources to make a chart, or series of charts. We can never be sure that the figures are on the same basis. Even within Kieve, there are figures given in one chapter which don't entirely match figures given in another – presumably because they are taken from different sources. Constructing our own charts in this way is pretty much the definition of WP:OR.
What I do have to hand right now is a set of figures for miles of wire per company immediately prior to nationalisation. That's not exactly what you are asking for, but it would give some comparison with the figures already in the article for miles of wire owned by the Post Office under nationalisation. I couldn't get gbooks to serve me the relevant page you linked in Beauchamp. What search term did you use? (available access to books is often search related. Linking the direct url doesn't work for other users. I've come across this problem repeatedly.) SpinningSpark 13:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I never combine sources to create a diagram. Must be a single chart or single diagram from a single source or multiple sources in a single group. I think a general search was something like growth in British telegraphy or growth of British telegraphy. I found three in total, I don't know why not, it is a good to show how and why they grew in a particular way. Yip, that's fine. Close this for the moment. I guess that is that. You've got your GA. Congratulations. Yipee!!. scope_creepTalk 14:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

[edit]

I notice that a lot of your comments are requesting additional information to be inserted in the lead. The lead is already quite lengthy, definitely at the upper limit of what a lead should be. In nearly every case the details requested are fully explained in the body of the article. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. It is not necessary to include many of these details. Largely, these comments are not issues that are GA requirements. Now, in this case, I don't have a problem with you addressing issues that are not strictly GA requirements since I intend to take this article on to FA. But because of the length issue, I want to resist making too many additions to the lead unless they are either matters of clarity (criterion 1a) or important content is missing (criterion 1b). I'll wait for a response from you before addressing those points individually. SpinningSpark 13:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yip, it is understandable. It will make an excellent FA article. I've had problems with long leads before and consequences, e.g. Hans Globke. I thought it was slightly overly long already but not by much really but it is structurally sound, well laid out and it is closed meaning that it encompasses the concept. It ideal and don't want to unnecessarily expand it, if the information can be kept in the body. I'll take a look. Regarding 1a and 1b, will keep it in mind. I'll read the instructions again I think. scope_creepTalk 13:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviated company names

[edit]

Can we have a general discussion of what to do about this issue here? I think it would be best to establish a general principle first and then apply it to the individual items. SpinningSpark 14:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to give them all a short name,for example the Universal Private Telegraph Company becomes the Universal per the lede. Much easier to understand the word rather than an abbreviation or an acronym and stays in the mind longer. It also makes certain sections more readable, as in quicker to read by reducing that acronym storm you get when your discussing their evolution. The only exception would be Universal Private Telegraph Company which has been identified already as Telcon. scope_creepTalk 17:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment I'm not using any abbreviated names that are not found in the sources. It would be good if we did not depart from that principle. I'm willing to change "ETC" to "Electric". I've shied away from that so far because electric is used so much adjectivally in this field that there is potential for confusion. Incidentally, the UPTC is definitely not Telcon, and was never any part of it. It is also not in the lead. SpinningSpark 17:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you not take a licence. It is plausible that the two big ones were named as such, the other ones would be named in the same manner. The Universal Private Telegraph Company would certainly be called by the populace, the universal. This author[3] seems to have take a licence. He/she doesn't provide a reason or states was known as. but assumes the reader would understand. scope_creepTalk 10:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What about informing the user that they have slightly different meanings. For example, leave the (the Electric) as is, but for the other or the first one, state something like for brevity, the universal. Later - not brevity. For readability or something like that. scope_creepTalk 10:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking for several hours now but can't seem to see a ready solution. I think it would need some research. scope_creepTalk 10:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Found another book the writer is single quoting it e.g. 'universal' scope_creepTalk 11:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ William Arthur Thomas (12 November 2012). Provincial Stock Exchange. Routledge. p. 104. ISBN 978-1-136-27302-5. Retrieved 9 September 2019.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference x was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b Ken Beauchamp (2001). History of Telegraphy. IET. p. 74. ISBN 978-0-85296-792-8. Retrieved 14 October 2019. Cite error: The named reference "Beauchamp2001" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  • So far we have, I think, decided this;
Electric Telegraph Company

Electric and International Telegraph Company

ETC → the Electric
English and Irish Magnetic Telegraph Company

British and Irish Magnetic Telegraph Company

the Magnetic
British Electric Telegraph Company

British Telegraph Company

BETC → ?
London District Telegraph Company the District
United Kingdom Telegraph Company UKTC → ?
Universal Private Telegraph Company UPTC → the Universal
Submarine Telegraph Company STC → ?

There are still a few unresolved question marks. SpinningSpark 15:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cant see a thing on the STC, although discovered a Jstor document [6] on early telegraph submarine cables that describes Gutta-percha as forming a polymer of isoprene. scope_creepTalk 15:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The ones that remain will not abbreviate in words very easily. So perhaps leave those ones as initialisms. Gutta-percha is a polymer of isoprene (or at least the active part is) but that's something for the gutta-percha article to discuss. SpinningSpark 17:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yip good place for it. I don't know what we need to do. I would suggest taking the using British for the British Electric Telegraph Company and the other one. The reason for this is follows. British is known name, slips of the tongue easily and it would be see as patriotic. This was the time of the British empire after all. Next, people tend not to use long acronyms or abbreviations in normal speech. Its not a thing. So it would initially shortened to the British Electric and eventually British. Also no one would use the company. They don't care about it. I'm going down to the British to send a telegram. However, I can't find any evidence for it for obvious reasons. I'm sure that normal daily slang would reduce it to that. In the same vein for some folk it could have be BE. Can find anything on the United Kingdom Telegraph Company. I think you should take a licence on the British one. scope_creepTalk 17:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think we can do that (I mean call them the British, taking a licence is ok). That's just open to confusion saying "the British did this" or "the British did that". It's got even worse potential for being misread than the Electric. SpinningSpark 18:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is understandable and you can't look it up as it references on British people. I would suggest taking a similar move to United' for United Kingdom Telegraph Company. It has 23 entries on UKTC across several sections. The other two, the BETC has five entries and STC has six in much smaller sections. So I would suggest the United for BETC would be ideal. scope_creepTalk 18:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I meant the the United for the UKTC. scope_creepTalk 22:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to get a second opiniion on this. @Ian Rose: as FAC coordinator, how do you think this would go down at FA? SpinningSpark 17:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well worth doing that I think as i'm out of ideas on it. scope_creepTalk 18:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a MOS proscription against this at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Do not invent abbreviations or acronyms which I think is a slam dunk for not doing it as it is not supported by sources. Which by implication also means we have to have a mixture of abbreviations and acronyms if we are not using the full company names. SpinningSpark 14:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, sorry if I appear slow on the uptake but is my opinion being sought re. abbreviations or on the article's readiness for FAC? If the latter, a brief look suggests yes, though I'd recommend trying a Peer Review first and pinging a few project talk pages about it, even including MilHist as there are some editors there who work on technological subjects like this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yip. I think the onus is now the reader to keep track of the different companies. Close this. scope_creepTalk 14:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose has come in and gave a couple of suggestions, so I have reopened this. I think it is worth a thought Spinningspark. scope_creepTalk 15:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ian Rose: I was specifically asking about the issue discussed in this section. Firstly, the validity of editor made up abbreviations, and secondly, the inconsistency of a mixture of initialisms for some and abbreviations for others, but as noted above, the MOS is already explicit on this. SpinningSpark 16:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scope_creep, I don't think Ian Rose was making those suggestions as part of this GA. Peer review and notifying Wikiprojects is a normal (and expected) preliminary to an FAC. SpinningSpark 10:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm fine closing this. I thought he might have come with something else. A fair bit of time has been spent on it. The reason I reopened it is that I think parts of the MOS, the rationale that is delivered is specific for small articles and it starts to break down for large articles. If this was a professional manual or document for a commerical organisation, e.g. a licence would have been taken or a glossary sheet supplied to enable the reader to understand what has been said in place without refering to a previous section. Close this. scope_creepTalk 11:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


GA Progress

[edit]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Peer review

[edit]

Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review with a view to achieving FA status. The GA review of this article by User:Scope creep was thoroughgoing to say the least so I am not expecting it to need too much work, but all comments more than welcome. SpinningSpark 17:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks, SpinningSpark 17:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commnents from Andy Dingley

[edit]
  • Haven't read all the text yet, but:
  • Lead image - a motorcyclist? It's not really shouting "telegraphy" at me. Maybe an instrument?
  • I make no apologies for the lead image; this article is not primarily about telegraph equipment, that is well covered in other articles. I was particularly keen while writing it not to write a duplicate of the electrical telegraph article (although there obviously has to be some overlap). The telegraph for most of this period, to the man in the street, usually meant recieving a telegram, and that would be delivered by a messenger like the one depicted. Did you have an alternative lead image in mind? SpinningSpark 00:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the "PO"? GPO, please! (Or PO Telecommunications, later on)
  • I've now indicated at first mention that "Post Office" is shorthand for "GPO". I had actually edited the page to change them all to GPOs as requested but then changed my mind before saving. There are two reasons to justify this; fistly, many sources use this shorthand, and in particular my main source for the nationalisation to 1970 period (Kieve) does this throughout. Even Post Office official documents do it, except when they are referring to their headquarters. Secondly, and more importantly, I think initialisms in running text break up the flow of an article and make it difficult to read so should be avoided where possible. SpinningSpark 00:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just off the top of my head, I could reel off much of the technical history of telegraphy in the UK, but I don't know the social history of it. Who sent telegrams, and how did they send them? Was it all done through the post office, private telegraph companies, or (as in the US) rural communities used the railway systems instead? 5 needle, Morse or Wheatstone clocks? (it notes that the PO switched to Morse, but isn't clear when) What was the public take-up of this, and the split between private, business and official use? How many days of a shepherd's wages did it take to send a message? Did the rich use it, and did it reduce the famously prolific Victorian habit of letter writing?
  • Taking those points one at a time;
  • "Who sent telegrams?" That depends on the period in the 1.5 centuries the system ran. I think the article as a whole paints the picture that more of the less wealthy could send telegrams as the price came down, but I'm open to suggestions for improvements in specific places.
  • "How did they send them?" One sends a telegram by going to a telegraph office. There was nothing unusual about the UK in this respect. Were you looking for this in the article? (a little condescending to the reader imo) or was this just leading into the following comment perhaps? If the latter, I think the article covers this fairly well. The first telegraph lines (owned by the ETC) were along railways and could only be accessed from a railway. Same story with some other companies, but they were all different. The London District had offices right in the city, and probably similar story in other large cities. The Post Office Telegraphs section makes the point that many places only had offices at inconvenient railway staions. At the point of nationalisation, the decision was made to put the telegraph into all post offices, also already in the article. Again, I'm open to specific suggestions in particular sections.
  • "5 needle, Morse, or Wheatstone clocks?" Prior to nationalisation, the system used depended on the company. I think the article already states which of the important companies used which system. The Post Office made the decision to go to the Morse system immediately they had control. As the article says, the changeover was a slow process taking many years with needle telegraphs remaining in use for decades. I also believe that the Wheatstone ABC remained in use in places like remote Scottish islands, presumably because it was uneconomic to send a trained Morse operator out there, but I don't have a source so haven't put that in.
  • "What was the public take-up of this" There is something about the relation between takeup and price in several places in the article. The section on London District gives some figures, as does the "decline and recovery" section and the "End of the telegraph era" section. The latter also has something to say on the split between business and private, and there is something in the nationalisation part about railway usage. What else did you want? SpinningSpark 12:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "How many days of a shepherd's wages" I've added a comparison to average weavers' wages, which I think was typical of Victorian workers. SpinningSpark 12:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infamous "garb of a Kwaker" murder case. I've no idea who "John Tawell" was, but I know the case. Wheres Salt Hill? It's better known (in murder histories) as Slough. (So when I first read this para, I didn't even recognise the reference.) Why did they send a message to a Peruvian bear, rather than a railway station? Is "garb of a Kwaker" worth mentioning here, as an example of the limitations of early telegraphy?
  • I'm not in favour of expanding on the Tawell case. It is already covered in depth on multiple other pages. Again, taking your points one at a time
  • "I've no idea who John Tawell was". Is there a more well known name of the case? Tawell was the murderer so it seems reasonable to link to his page.
  • "Salt Hill better known as Slough". I've added that it is near Slough. Although Salt Hill is now a district of Slough, it was then a seperate community with a mile between them, so this is the more accurate term, whatever murder histories might say.
  • "Peruvian bear" done, although Paddington is actually a place, not a bear.
  • "limitations of early telegraphy" The limitations are not limitations of the 5-needle telegraph equipment, they are limitations of the telegraph operators. The limitation is their presumed inability to learn a code. With five needles each able to take on three positions (left, right, and neutral) there are 35=243 possible codepoints, more than enough for the alphabet. But the codepoints used were limited to 5P2=20 by the requirment for exactly two needles to point to a letter. In any event, that is a red herring because the 5-needle telegraph was rapidly ditched and one-needle instruments were in use throughout the line by the time of the Salt Hill murder. The code used was a serial, variable-length code just as Morse is. However, for some reason that is not clear to me, they did not bother to define codepoints for most of the missing letters (at least, not for some time) resulting in the "garb of a Kwaker" message. The proof that this message was not sent by the 5-needle telegraph can be seen in the words "first class ticket", and several other places. There was no codepoint for "C" in the five-needle code, but there was in the one-needle code. SpinningSpark 14:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No mention of code books, like Bentleys. These were very important in British telegraphy, and internationally (they often served as a language translation medium too).
  • Telex. " Western Union who set up a telex system in the United States in 1962, but soon became a generic name for the worldwide teleprinter switched network that developed from 1970 onwards. In Britain, the Post Office moved to automatic switching in 1947, " Ouch. WU had telex in the US from the late 1950s. But (more importantly), telex started in the 1930s, even if that wasn't WU doing it. This is very misleading. Especially when it's followed by the British "moving to automatic switching in 1947". Both this, and the telex article, miss out a huge amount of history because they ignore the development of the British telex network as a military system, as part of the early Cold War defences and the vast telephony network that put into place. (Which British obscurity largely camouflaged as "civilian", only with oddly few customers.) " The address of the recipient was contained in the header of the message which the automatic exchanges could read. " Oh, really? " telex switched to a new telegraph code, ASCII, to aid integration with computers. " Again, ouch. It's not entirely wrong, but it's so misleading. " One of the last groups using the telex service was solicitors, " again. Fax was dominant over telex for a long time, also solicitors were within their own walled garden of their DX system (which encompassed both physical mail and electronic). " use of telegraph private wires and telex was growing" at the same time? By what meaning for 'telex'? Private teleprinter circuits were always expensive and once telex was available there was little need for them. So although telex traffic was growing here and shrinking telegrams, it wasn't private circuits which were growing. Private data circuits were starting to appear, but these were services like Kilostream, using modems (often 4-wire circuits), with little in common with baseband telegraphy.
  • I don't want to substantially expand the telex section. It is on the margins of the scope of this article and only needs covering inasmuch as it relates to the end of the telegraph era. This page has the potential to grow completely out of control. But I will look at some of your specific points. SpinningSpark 16:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1962 date for US telex. That's what the source says, and it's also the date the name was registered as a trademark. If you have a more authoritative source, please share. Huurdeman makes a distinction between teleprinter service and telex service with this date.
  • "telex started in the 1930s, even if that wasn't WU doing it" I've reworked this para to make the British role clearer. The pre-war work is in the Automation section, which would not be ideal if we were telling the story of telex, but the sections here are in roughly historical order. The "End of the telegraph era" picks up at the end of the war so I feel that split is justified.
  • "Cold War defences". This would be an article in itself, and as you say, it was as much telephone as telex, but I'll give it a mention.
  • " contained in the header" That's exactly how private sysems I've worked on operated, but it's unsourced so I've removed it.
  • "ASCII...misleading". In what way? I've slightly rewworded that which may address your concern
  • "private wires and telex...growing". That's what the source says. I trust Kieve on this, he took his data directly from Post Office records so he should have got this right. Unlikely to be a more authoritative RS on this. SpinningSpark 21:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fax (just not mentioned here). Fax in the UK was pretty obscure until a postal strike in 1989(?), when overnight every business switched to fax. This had a huge effect on business (and medical) communications in the UK. It killed telex. It's reckoned to have set email adoption back by a few years (email in 1989 was effective, but isolated clusters of users on separate systems, without much gatewaying or internet). It went into the NHS and just wouldn't go for decades.
  • Yes, fax was a bit of an omission, but probably because most of the story of fax happened in the US. I've added something to the early history section on Bain who constructed the first machine (at least, one that was used) and added the Bain telegraph.
  • Fax killing telex. I'm looking at this but I'm seeing a lot of contradictory dates in sources for the date of the strike. SpinningSpark 11:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Dingley (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the comments Andy. I don't agree with everything you have said, but I'll try to address all your points in due course. SpinningSpark 16:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As it looks like no one else is going to comment, I'll start working through these issues now. SpinningSpark 14:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley:. I've now responded to everything. Do you want to give it another look before it goes to FA? SpinningSpark 14:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commnents from Binksternet

[edit]
  • The initial image of a single motorcyclist doesn't convey the power and scope of the topic. May I suggest substituting the global map image showing submarine links? Or perhaps a notional map image showing land-locked telegraph lines in the UK at its peak.
  • The lead section is a bit long, one paragraph longer than suggested at WP:LEAD. The lead section could be trimmed of excess detail about unprofitable telegraph companies, about gutta-percha, and about manufacturing companies. But I would not merge any two paragraphs to reduce the number from five to four. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When legislation is being discussed, the word bill when presented alone should not be capitalised.
  • The following sentence should have one instance of "back" reworded to avoid repetition: "After the war, telegram usage went back into decline and the deficit was back in the millions of pounds."
  • The reason for the failure of cable-connected weather ships staying on station somewhere at sea is not explained. A bit more detail should be given to help the reader.
    • The article doesn't say that holding on station was the reason for failure. As far as I recall, neither did the source, but I no longer have it available (it was an interlibrary loan) and I can't find any other source discussing The Brick. The failure could just as easily have been financial for all I know, but I daresay that keeping hold of a cable in deep ocean in bad weather would be next to impossible. SpinningSpark 01:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Folkestone misspelled as Folkstone?
  • It would be interesting to learn how much money was lost in the catastrophic foolishness of Wildman Whitehouse applying too much voltage. A sense of scale would help.
  • Do you think it would be worth mentioning Shelford Bidwell and his scanning phototelegraph, an improvement on the Italian pantelegraph? Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe Bidwell's machine was only a demonstration/experiment and never put into use, but if it was, it would have required a telephone type analogue line, not the on/off of telegraph, just as modern fax machines do. So all in all, it is not really part of the history of telegraphy. I'm not all that familiar with it, so willing to be corrected on that. SpinningSpark 11:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet: I've now addressed all your comments. I hope that is satisfactory. SpinningSpark 11:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. Your trimming of gutta percha in the lead section was perfect, keeping the essence. The Whitehouse damage figure is fantastic: 210 million pounds today! Amazing they let him live. Binksternet (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They probably would have liked to, but settled for firing him. The incompetence, lies, and duplicity of Whitehouse is quite breathtaking. He actually had better equipment available than his monster induction coil, but refused to use it through jelousy of Lord Kelvin. I might expand this story next a bit in the article on the cable. SpinningSpark 22:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129

[edit]

Solid article! Shouldn't much (any?) work to get it from here to fac. Note, my suggestions are just that, and, if you chose, you could wait to action them until fac and see if they are repeated.

  • (the delivery of telegraph messages by messenger from the telegraph office): tricky one. Obviously, telegram service needs to be explained (but does it, in the lead?), but is it possible to somehow avoid the telegraph-message-messenger-telegraph repetition?
    • Done the repetition. In my opinion, the telegram service is important to mention in the lead (and thus what it is needs to be there as well, there are now generations of people who have never had direct experience of it). Receiving a telegram was the public-facing experience of telegraphy. That was what telegraph meant to the public. Once telegraphy came out of the railways era (ie, became commercial), number of telegrams handled was a metric used for the success of a telegraph enterprise. SpinningSpark 09:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talking of the lead, I'd expect the length to be mentioned. WP:LEADLENGTH s no real help—it only advises up to 30K characters. And even then only measures itself in nebulous "paragraphs". How long is a piece of string?
    • My personal rule of thumb is no longer than 10% of article prose. It's a lot shorter than that now. Some large chunks came out after discussion of this point in earlier review comments. If you think there is still unimportant detail there, please highlight it. SpinningSpark 09:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The introduction of gutta-percha in 1843 by Scottish military surgeon"—did he introduce it or invent it?
    • Introduced is the right word here. As a natural product, he could hardly have invented it. The alternative, as some sources have said, is to say he discovered it, but that is not really accurate as is explained in his article. SpinningSpark 09:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about (or Post Office)?
    • What is the issue you are trying to address? To me, using the definite article emphasises that a specific entity is being referred to be the capitalised shortened form, not any old post office. SpinningSpark 10:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any detail on the mechanics of Ronalds' eight miles of wire? I'm not sure I can think of another way of putting it, but as it stands, does it rather imply a continuous stretch?
    • Ronalds uses the phrase "one continuous length" [7], but I would hesitate to interpret that as not having any joins in it. In the end, it is not really an important point whether it was mechanically continuous. Electrically continuous is the required property for this experiment. SpinningSpark 10:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the voltaic pile came before the Daniell cell chronologically suggest you swap these sentences around.
    • Not so sure about that, it isn't always beneficial to stick to strict chronological order. This article is about UK telegraphy and it should be focused on developments in Britain, not telegraphy generally. We have other articles to do that. The topic of this paragraph is Daniell's invention, so that should be introduced as early as possible and its importance stated. SpinningSpark 11:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is sulfur the US of sulphur?
  • Explanation, perhaps, of "make-and-break contacts"?
  • Davy's wire is copper; Renold's was iron. I guess that's the greater conductivity of the former? Perhaps say so, if that's the case?
    • What you say on conductivity is true, but it's not as straightforward as that. Before we can say anything at all on Davy's or Ronalds' choice of materials we need a source discussing it which I don't currently have. Ronalds' equipment was high-voltage and low-current so resistance was not so significant as on the low-voltage high-current (batteries) of Davy's. There is a large time gap between the two – 1816 to 1837 and industrialisation was rapidly progressing in this period. It may be that long lengths of extruded copper were simply not available to Ronalds but iron wire was plentiful. Copper wire production did not become a big thing until after the electrical industry got established. Ronalds' setup was semi-permanent but Davy needed to rig and derig his demonstration multiple times. It may be that better flexibility of copper was more suited to this. SpinningSpark 13:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talking of which, as that's the second time that the reader has been told about massive amounts of wire helping with a telegraphy experiment, perhaps explain why at the first instance (a footnote, perhaps, explaining its role in the experiment. Ties in with my #4 above.)
    • The opening sentence of the section is The first demonstration that an electric telegraph could be operated over a substantial distance was... Why does that not make it clear enough why so much wire was used? SpinningSpark 13:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's true that Davy abandoned telegraphy, but is it worth mentioning that, IIRC, he sold his patents to someone so as to prevent his competitors from using them? (Or somesuch!)
  • Link to railway signalling at first mention? ("He pitched the telegraph to various..."
  • "run suspended and uninsulated"?
    • It means that the wires did not have a coating or wrapping of insulating material as would be needed for cables laid underground or in a conduit. What is the problem you are seeing with the current wording? SpinningSpark 14:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "between 1846 and 1870—that is from the formation of the first telegraph company until nationalisation—the telegraph grew entirely"
  • Bearing in mind you've just said "between 1846 and 1870", you could get away with "During the same period..." instead of almost the same date in the run-on sentence.
  • "threatening to derail the bill forming the company...": a parliamentary bill?
    • Yes, I don't know much about company law, but forming a limited company in this period seems to have required a parliamentary bill. Or are you referring to the capitalisation? See Binksternet's comment on that above. SpinningSpark 14:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After 1848 other areas of business started to grow in comparison to the railways" I know what you mean, but it's not really a comparison. Something like "other areas were becoming increasingly profitable"?
    • It doesn't mean that these areas were (necessarily) more profitable, or even profitable at all, although that is what the next sentence addresses. It means that they became a larger percentage of the business and the railway sector became a smaller percentage (but still growing). I don't see why that is not a fair comparison, businesses look at that kind of metric all the time. SpinningSpark 14:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The largest telegraph company until nationalisation in 1870...Cooke retired from the company after nationalisation". To remove the repetition, suggest "The largest telegraph company until nationalisation in 1870, after which Cooke retired".
  • "knighted for their efforts in telegraphy in": The usual form of words, I think, is "knighted for their services to telegraphy"; that would also allow you to lose one of those "in"s.
  • "It was not, however, the first competitor": the preceding sentence makes this unclear as to who "it" is: suggest, "Magnetic was not, however, Electric's first competitor".
  • "obtained very few wayleaves; the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway was one of the few exceptions"...could probably reword slightly to lose that second "few"?
More to come! ——SN54129 06:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: You said more to come, but seem to come to a stop. I've now responded to all your points so far, so if you have nothing else, or don't want to come back on any of my comments, I'll archive the Peer Review and put it up at FAC. SpinningSpark 15:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: raps, sorry! I forget to watchlist it, and compleetly forget. I'll have a look over now, and carry on if you want. Just to say, that if you want to go to FAC now I (for what my opinion is worth) don't think there's anything to roundly criticise, so I could make the rest of my points there, they were heneraly just minor copyedits (as noted above). What say you? ——SN54129 15:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As much as possible, I'm in favour of bottoming out disagreements and polishing the article prior to going to FAC. Critical remarks can sometimes derail a FAC in the eyes of other, less involved, editors, so let's keep that to a minimum. SpinningSpark 15:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Second tranche.
[edit]
  • £2 10 shillings (£2.50) and £3: {{Inflation|GBP|2.50|1860|2018}}
    • I've done that, but with reservations. First of all, there is a large number of currency figures in the article. It will become horribly cluttered if they all have an inflation template, especially as all the small and fractional amounts already have a conversion to modern currency. Also, the default index used by the template is the CPI, which is not appropriate for capital expenditure. The template does have a GDP deflator index, which is more appropriate and I've used that, but capital equipment costs are notoriously industry specific and the meaningfulness of the figure the template spits out is dubious. SpinningSpark 19:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • which was acoustic rather than visual and allowed... suggest "; acoustic rather than visual, it allowed..."
  • Tricky one, but you should link John Watkins Brett on first use, although I note that the later use is complicated by the presence of his article-less brother.
  • the Brett's company → "the Bretts' company"
  • From about 1857 the Magnetic had an agreement with them that all their submarine cables were to be used only with the landlines of the Magnetic; slightly unclear. Perhaps tighten as "From about 1857 the two companies had an agreement that all STC submarine cables were to be used only with the Magnetic's landlines" or something.
  • Why did Newall's litigation force a removal from the telegraphy business? Because he was losing them business?
    • I don't think he was forced out exactly. I get the impression that he was an unpleasant character to work with and customer's just went elsewhere when they could. The story of his company should have an article on Wikipedia; I know some of it through writing other articles, but it is too tangential to go into details here and is already adequately covered. He stopped the manufacture of the English Channel cable because he claimed it was a rope and infringed his patent. When given the contract for the first Irish Sea cable, he secretly made another one of his own and tried to install it himself before his customer. Some of his work was shoddy, and there was a famous cockup he was involved in when the two halves of the Atlantic cable turned out to have been made with opposite twists making it impossible to splice them together directly. It may be that the formation of Telcon, which had some big-money backers, outcompeted his little show in out-of-the-way Gateshead. SpinningSpark 20:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence re. UKTC's Newbiggin-Jutland cable is a run-on; bearing in mind what you said about the difficulty in maintaining chronology, is it possible to move it to a para more concerned with the UKTC's activities? It seems a little out of place in a paragraph entirely devoted to other companies.
  • When was it extended to Russia?
  • The guarantees provided by the government for these two ventures had caused them a financial loss; although the prose only goes on to discuss the Red Sea / India route, unless I've misunderstood. What went wrong with the transatlantic route?
    • The first Atlantic cable laid (1858) was a disaster and stopped working altogether after a few weeks. The second cable (1866) was then done without government backing and was a great success (not saying there was a connection between those two things - draw your own conclusion). I'll try and draw a clearer distinction between cables 1 and 2. I've not gone into the Atlantic cable in great detail because it already has its own article. Also, it was a joint Anglo-American venture, not purely British, although British companies did all the actual work. SpinningSpark 21:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "multiplicity" in the formation of a multiplicity of new companies t will get mentioned.
  • Pender. Pender's first project... could easily be "Pender. His first project..." Or even "Pender, whose first project was to lay a new cable to India. This covered most of the distance..." perhaps.
  • where it would remain in British control and avoid the political and other risks...: Tighten, "so remaining in British control and avoiding the political and other risks"?
  • Have you got anything, apropos all the discussion of overland routes and their concomitant political risks, how they protected these cables once laid in foreign territory?
    • As far as I know, there were no specific incidents that led to British concern. It was more a general desire to keep the whole thing under British control. It was not possible to prevent interference with a telegraph line crossing foreign territory short of gunboat diplomacy (which wasn't out of the question for the British at the time). SpinningSpark 12:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know radiotelegraphy has been linked in the lead, but probably should also be at first use in the body.
  • that they could best compete worldwide by merging the cable and radio companies into a single entity: their cable and radio companies?
  • I think "By now, there was no real need for distinct telegraph cables", instead of "anymore".
  • How did they, physically, bury the cables?
  • Retardation is a dab page, anything there for you?
    • No, we don't have an article on this per se. I've added that modern engineers would call this effect intersymbol interference and also added a link to law of squares which has some details of Kelvin's mathematical description. I only recently wrote that page while expanding the Atlantic cable article as an adjuct that would have been a bit of a tangent on the cable page. Retardation as used here is an obsolete and misleading term. The Victorian engineers meant by it simply delay. I'm not sure that they fully understood that the problem was not delay per se, but differential delay. Whitehouse, who destroyed the Atlantic cable because of it, certainly didn't. SpinningSpark 13:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If at fac article-length gets mentioned (not by me), it might be worth thinking of adding a system of footnotes for contextual rather than explicit discussion—the sentence(s) from "Dispersion, as it relates...engineers" was what caught my eye as a perfect candidate.
  • OOC, what happened to the bracingly-named Wildman Whitehouse? His article is unclear, apart from that he was found solely culpable.
  • I'd suggest changing he was a maverick outsider and was ignored to something less in WP's own voice, such as "but as an ouysider—and considered a maverick—he was ignored".
  • The telegraph companies began employing women as telegraph operators early on in the companies period. This needs explaining: what is the "companies period"? Can a date be given instead, to anchor the employment of women in? For example, "...since the 1840s", or whenever you say so.
    • The companies period is the period when private telegraph companies were running things. I can't really think of a better way of stating that. I've now introduced the phrase right at the beginning of the companies section so it should be clear to readers when they get here. On dates, its hard to be precise as this is obviously going to vary from company to company. 1855 is already in the article for the ETC, the main company. I would have given an exact date for the Magnetic if I had one, but since they were formed in 1850, that puts it in a five year window at most.
  • who had few other good options "who had few other employment options" is probably more accurate, as the universal option for an unmarried Victorian woman was not to remain unmarried for long...
  • ETC's salary scheme: inflation template again; people will be keen to know how much women were earning in today's money. In fact, as you go on to say that it was less than their male counterparts (are you reading this, BBC?!), could you state just how big/small the wage gap was?
    • I'd like to have a wider ranging discussion on templates and conversions - see below. Kieve probably gives figures for male workers somewhere, but I had that book on interlibrary loan and it went back some time ago. There is only snippet view on gbooks and I can't get anything that way. However, I will put in something that was missed – that the better social class of women coming to the profession was a secondary reason. SpinningSpark 16:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, the BBC originally based their pay and grading structure on the Post Office Telegraph's system. That explains a lot. SpinningSpark 17:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • threepence (1.3p) per day, don't get this: threepence was 3d? (Note it can be linked too.)
    • The threepence article is about a coin, not the amount, so is not really relevant. Not sure what you don't get; 3d = 1.25p to be exact, but we are not going to do two decimal places of pennies in this article – too Mr. Spock. SpinningSpark 16:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1851 channel cable caused a major boost in the reputation of the telegraph, suggest "the 1851 channel cable boosted the telegraph's reputation further".
  • opening hours. This ability was unprecedented in international communication: how about, "opening hours, a hitherto unprecedented event in international communication".
  • by the companies, especially competition with the District these reads as some (nebulous) companies specifically competing with the District?
Another lot tomorrow! (If you want it, of course.) ——SN54129 16:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please carry on. I am also keen to hear your responses on any bullets I have declined to do, or questioned what you meant. SpinningSpark 08:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to have a discussion on inflation templates. I've been avoiding doing that because of the great number of currency amounts in this article. I feel they interrupt the flow of the text. If we were to include them generally, I think we should at least lose the conversions to decimal currency for the smaller amounts, which were requested at GA review. We don't need both and they are pretty meaningless as that system didn't exist in the Victorian era. SpinningSpark 16:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on copyediting

[edit]
  • @Twofingered Typist: Thanks for taking on the copyedit, but would you please refrain from removing the double spaces between sentences?
@Spinningspark: Sure, but it has no impact on how the text appears on screen
  • "...resulting in British telegraphy dominating..." It is misleading to say one thing was the result of the other. The reasons for British dominance are not solely (or even mainly) due to Cooke's company. The point of the sentence is rather, here are two things why British telegraphy is notable enough for its own article. Now two sentences.
  • Why have you changed the link from the singular wayleaves (which redirects to the relevant part of the target article) to the plural wayleaves which does not? Surely the singular is better since if it ever becomes a standalone article the title will undoubtedly be singular.
I see your point. Reverted.
Money orders is fine-no redirect.
  • "...General Post Office (the Post Office)..." changed to "...General Post Office (GPO)..." The term used throughout the article is Post Office and I note you haven't been changing this to GPO. The first mention should give the term actually used in the article, whichever one that is.
It is usual practice to put the acronym after the first use. GPO is accurate. This is s a 14K-word article and I have no idea if it will be needed later. It does no harm to include it imo.
  • "Electrical telegraphy uses conducting wires to send messages, often incorporating a telegram service messenger to deliver the telegraphed communication from the telegraph office." I'm not very happy with this. First of all, it has badly broken the flow. The main point is that electrical telegraphy was x, earlier telegraphy was y, and later telegraphy was z. (Electric telegraphy doesn't "send" anything, hence the change.) It is part of constraining the scope of the article. The statement about telegrams is really just an aside, which is why it was in brackets – so the logic of that flow wasn't lost. The following sentence "This is distinct from optical telegraphy..." could easily be misread as being distinct from a telegram service. On a more minor point, telegram service and telegram messenger are two different things, but they have become conflated in the new sentence.→fixed this. The rest is clear, I feel.
  • SpinningSpark 15:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC) to 16:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ABC telegraph video

[edit]

@TedColes: I've removed the Youtube video you inserted. I still have hopes of getting this to FA one day and I think that will just not be acceptable – Youtube is such a red flag that there needs to be a really strong case for including it. Besides, all the information was already cited and none of it came from that video. I don't even think an external link is justified in this article as the ABC is such a small part of the coverage. Maybe in an article about the ABC or in an article on Wheatstone's UPTC company. SpinningSpark 13:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article progress

[edit]

Hi @Spinningspark: I checked in on the article, to see how it was doing. I thought it would be FA by now, long ago really. What gives? scope_creepTalk 15:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was put up for FA but got bogged down in verification checks. It was finally killed off by Graham Beards' comments on the prose. I have in mind splitting it into two articles before putting up again. That will make it shorter and more readable. But it also needs a 100% source check because if even a minor problem is found the second time around it will probably be the kiss of death. I don't have the energy for that right now, and disappointment with that result was one of the reasons I took a long wikibreak for most of this year. SpinningSpark 15:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: Really sorry to hear that. I don't think it is good idea splitting it up. It is logically complete and good as a single article. It is not particularly long either. scope_creepTalk 22:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electrical_telegraphy_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1196690517"