Jump to content

Talk:Franklin's electrostatic machine/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 00:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing. My first impression is that, overall, this is a good choice for a nomination: reasonably complete and well sourced. The writing is at times cumbersome (e.g. "had knowledge of the fact that" could better be written "knew that") and could benefit from more copyediting, or maybe the test of reading it out loud to catch the awkward parts (GA criterion 1a). Additionally, I think the "lightning rod" section is too long and detailed for its limited direct relevance to the electrostatic machine (GA criterion 3b) and should be significantly reduced.

Lead
The lead is very short. WP:LEADLENGTH says that an article this size needs only one or two paragraphs of lead, but I think nevertheless that it could be expanded. You should think of the lead as a miniature version of the article: if a reader looked only at the lead, would they learn the important aspects of the summary? In particular the "Description of machine" section should have some summarizing material in the lead, and it doesn't seem to.
The image caption "Franklin's first electrical machine 1764" is confusing. How is the "1764" supposed to modify the rest of the text? Was it built in 1764, or depicted in 1764? If it was built in 1764, how does that match the claims in the article that it was built in 1746? Is this image really of the same machine described in the text of the article? Where is the glass globe? What is the provenance of the image? I mean, not that it comes from the Wellcome collection (that much is clear) but who drew it and when? Since the original source and accuracy of this image is so unclear, I am not convinced that it makes a good illustration for the article.
Benjamin Franklin
Is this really the best title for this section? It's not a biography of Franklin (nor should it be), which is what the title would suggest. "Background" might make more sense.
If this is to be about Franklin, it would be helpful to suggest what stage of his life this was: how old was Franklin, what was his business at the time, was his experimental work business or hobby, etc.?
This seems like the place to include material on what was already known (to people other than Franklin) about electrostatic generators. What was known? Currently the article says nothing about this. For instance, the Grimnes p.495 reference discusses earlier inventions of similar machines by Guericke and Hauksbee, and says that by 1740 such machines were widespread. So in what sense is this an invention by Franklin? What was novel? Why is his machine significant?
As I already wrote, "had knowledge of the fact that" would be much better expressed as "knew that".

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Certain objects" is vague: what kinds of object?
"several of his colleges" is a typo, should be "colleagues".
What caused Collinson to donate the jar? Did he know Franklin, or was he in the habit of handing out jars to all and sundry?
Answer = Collison was the London agent for Franklin's Library Company of Philadelphia.
"Franklin advanced the principle of generating a spark of electricity": I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Also, it is uncomfortably close to some wording from reference [1], "He advanced the concept of a single “fluid” of electricity".
"went about to develop": what does "went about" add here, other than circumlocution?
Source [1] (http://www.encyclopedia.com/people/history/us-history-biographies/benjamin-franklin) supposedly is used to source the claims that, prior to building the apparatus, Franklin knew about the generation of short sparks by rubbing things, and that he was specifically looking for a way of generating longer-lasting sparks for his experiments. But the only point of the source that I can find that gives a date for Franklin's knowledge of rubbing is the 25 May 1747 letter, after the apparatus was built. And I can't find anything in the source that matches "would need a supply of electricity that lasted significantly longer".
Source [2] (https://web.archive.org/web/20161028190523/http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-03-02-0055) is used for the donation of the Leyden jar by Collinson, for Franklin's letter thanking him, and for the receipt of the jar as motivation for Franklin's experiments. But the source calls Collinson's gift an "electric tube"; how do we know it was actually a Leyden jar?
Source [2] also states that this was Franklin's first writing on electricity, again calling into question the claim that Franklin knew about sparks from rubbing things prior to this work.
"pointed out" would be simpler "wrote".
Source [3] (https://books.google.com/books?id=_sgZQ8RGcCcC&pg=PA49) is a children's book, of dubious reliability. However, it gives some important background to Franklin's electrical research that is not mentioned in the article: that he saw a performance by a traveling showman called "Dr. Spence" in 1743, bought all of Spence's devices, and added several other objects to form the beginnings of his electrical laboratory, which he kept "in his upstairs study". It also puts the business in context (he was still working as a printer but retired in 1748). However, the accuracy of [3] as a source is called into question by the autobiography of Franklin [1], which states that Franklin did not meet Spence until 1746. This contradicts source [3]'s claim that it happened in 1743. Do any of the other sources shed light on this inconsistency? Source [3] also says that Franklin "would need more than a spark or two", problematically sourced earlier, but it is unclear from the source whether this was a thought that can specifically be attributed to Franklin or whether it is post-facto reasoning on the part of the source's author. Also the repetition of the "would need" wording used in the article, while too short to be a copyvio, makes me worry that this whole section is actually just a paraphrase of this source.
"continually generate electrical sparks": The source does not say that the machine generated sparks. It says that it generated a charge, which was drawn off through knitting needles. In any case this description seems out of place here, since it is the concern of the next section.
Description of machine, first paragraph
Is the "of machine" in the section heading actually informative? I think it would be better as just "Description", per MOS:HEAD: "Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article"
Our article claims that Franklin designed and built the machine with the help of Syng, Hopkinson, and Kinnersley. But the source, reference [4] (https://books.google.com/books?id=X52yBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA1014) instead claims that Syng designed the machine, and that Hopkinson and Kinnersley helped Franklin and Syng conduct experiments on it; it doesn't say anything about who built it. And our own article immediately contradicts itself by saying that Loxley was the one who built it. Can we either get some clarification from other sources here, or rework the text to better match the source? In any case our article needs to be self-consistent.
I'm having to take the Cohen book source [5] on good faith, as it's not available online; given the issues with the previous sources, it would be helpful to have some confirmation that you've checked this source and verified that it says what we claim it says.
Again, the article says that the glass globe directly supplied sparks, but source [3] says that electricity was drawn off through knitting needles, which we don't mention here. Which is it?
The article alternates between using singular and plural for the glass globe or globes. How many globes were there? Again, we should be more consistent.
  •  Done It only refers to "globes" when its talking about handling them. One globe per machine --> but there could be many machines, as it talks about many being made = "globes" (1 / machine = 5 / 5 machines). Wistarbugh made the glass "globes" that were kept in flannel lined cases. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reference formatting begins to be inconsistent here. Earlier sections used a format where the complete reference appears in a footnote. This section and following uses a format where the footnote contains a short link to the full reference in the later sources section, with a page number. The short link format makes more sense when the same source is used more than once with different pages, and I thought at first glance that the format was (footnote if source is used only once, short link with page number if source is used with multiple page numbers). That would at least be consistent, but it's not what the article is doing, because the Spencer reference is a short link that is used only once. Can we settle on a consistent referencing format, please?

 Done I use Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books. Then I use "sfn" that refers to the source that has "ref=harv". I follow this up with a previously installed app (from Help Desk) for Harv Error that will show in red if anything here is incorrect = nothing shows! --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our article claims that Loxley made the machine; the source ([6], https://books.google.com/books?id=1A6qBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA75) says only that he may have made the wooden parts of it. Our article sources the claim that the glass globe rotated and was 9 inches (23 cm) in diameter to source [6], but that source does not mention the dimensions of the globe nor even that it is a globe, saying only that Wistar made "the glass parts". The leather pad and Leyden jar of the apparatus are claimed as being sourced to footnote [6] but that source does not mention them. There's an even bigger problem with sourcing these claims of who manufactured what to source [6], though: that paragraph in the source is primarily about a replica machine purchased by Colden, and in context it seems to mean that Wistar and Loxley made the replica. So it is not a good source for who made the original machine.

 Done Reworded accordingly. Removed dimensions of globe. Used "...piece of material in the form of a pad..." --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"chamois leather buckskin" is an oxymoron. Is the leather from a goat (chamois) or a deer (buckskin)?

 Done See above. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Description of machine, second paragraph
The first four sentences are to the offline-only Cohen reference; can you verify that they say what they are claimed to say?

 Done Reworded accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Mentioned" means that Franklin said something in conversation to someone else. If this is something he wrote, it would be clearer to say that.

 Done Reworded accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"the glass globe": were the Europeans rubbing the same actual piece of glass that Franklin put in his machine? Because that's what this wording seems to imply.

 Done Reworded accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"the chamois pad": what Chamois pad? No pad has been mentioned yet in this section, so "a chamois pad" would be more appropriate. Also, again, was the pad made from the leather of a goat or of a deer?

 Done Used "...piece of material in the form of a pad..." --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"to charge the Leyden jar" ... "charged a Leyden jar": the wording is too repetitive and the indefinite article for the second use of the same article is wrong. Maybe change the second part to "charged the jar"?

 Done Reworded accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference [9] is to a https://books.google.com/books?id=QSMZBAAAQBAJ — a dubiously-reliable children's book with about 30 pages of actual text (the table of contents lists the glossary as beginning at page 31, with external links, additional reading, and an index on pages 32, 33, and 34. Yet our footnote says we are using page 36 of this source? How can this be?

 Done Removed Feldman reference. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference [10] is to page 459 of https://books.google.com/books?id=abqjP-_KfzkC&pg=PA459 — the first page of that book's entry on the Leyden jar. On that page, the only mention of Franklin is a paragraph about Franklin's theories of how a Leyden jar operated and that these theories were well-received in Europe. There is nothing on that page about the electrostatic machine, and certainly not the claimed detail that it used knitting needles, barely touching the globe, and a chain-link wire, to draw off the electricity into the Leyden jar.

 Done Reworded accordingly. Removed Heilbron reference. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Description of machine, third paragraph
The claim that both Colden and Lewis Evans "ordered some of these machines" is badly sourced to [6], which talks only about a single machine bought by Colden. (It mentions Evans as having bought some earlier electrical equipment, but not this machine.)

 Done Removed the claim that both Colden and Lewis Evans "ordered some of these machines." --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The wording "In the winter of 1746-1747, Franklin began" is uncomfortably close to source [11]'s "In the winter of 1746-1747, he began".
Reference 12 (https://books.google.com/books?id=oCX0BQAAQBAJ&pg=PT98 — another juvenile) is a bad source for this sentence, about Franklin beginning his experiments in 1746-1747, because it says that Franklin's experiments happened "After Ben retired from the printing business in 1748." This obvious error calls into question its reliability.

 Done Copy edited and reworded. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 13 (https://books.google.com/books?id=Q5rIcCdMpKkC&pg=PA142) supposedly sources the sentence in the article that "Franklin had several of these electrostatic machines made" but what it actually says that is relevant to this is only that Franklin sent Gov. Belcher "one of his machines". One can infer that he had several made, I suppose, but that seems too close to WP:OR for my taste.

 Done Copy edited and reworded. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Description of machine, photos
The images in this section are bot-verified as once having been released under an appropriate CC license on Flickr, but they are not freely licensed there now. Technically this may not be a problem (if they were licensed once, we can continue using them under that license) but it may mean that we're not complying with the photographer's wishes. Also, the formatting using the gallery tag is ugly; can we use {{multiple image}} instead?

 Done Moved images. It so happens that in July 2015 I was in communications with the photographer. He lowered his license rights so I could use in the article. He offered other pictures (i.e. Leyden jar battery) that could possible be used also. I sent him a link to the article after I put his pictures in the Wikipedia article. He was O.K. with it when he sent me a reply, "...don't know if any of these can be used." Apparently later he changed it back to "All Rights Reserved" as a default to all his pictures.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the documentation that this is a "Later model"? How much later?
The Flickr page makes clear that the photos were from the Franklin Institute; we should say so.

 Done Reworded caption wording.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"glass globe generator for producing static electricity" seems awkward, redundant, and wrong. Redundant because "generator" and "for producing static electricity" say the same thing; wrong because the globe is a part of the generator but is not the generator itself.
(through first paragraph; still need to review the next two paragraphs and the following sections)

 Done Reworded caption wording.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Electrical principles, first paragraph
The link on the Labaree reference [14] is broken, and looks useless if it worked (only going to the publisher's web page rather than an online copy of the book). The book itself appears to be offline. Our charge conservation article has another, possibly better, source for the claim that Franklin discovered this conservation law. The description of charge conservation here ("that "positive" and "negative" charges come out in even amounts and are always balanced") appears confused and wrong. The scare quotes are unnecessary. And whether "even" means a multiple of two or equal numbers, it is not true that the charges in an object or system must be even or balanced. Have you checked whether the source actually says that he found these discoveries "with his electrostatic machine"? Because many of the sources are quite vague about the connection between the apparatus and the theory.

 Done Copy edited and reworded accordingly. Replaced with better Labaree link. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference [15] can be linked as https://books.google.com/books?id=Yh-ajmMQzv8C&pg=PA16 .

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"just giant sparks of opposing charges of electricity balancing themselves": according to the source ([16] https://books.google.com/books?id=WjgTv0-XdLYC&pg=PA12), the opposing charges are in the clouds, or cloud and ground; the spark "passes between" the opposing charges rather than being made of them. And there's nothing in the source about balancing. From the same source, our article's wording "By November 1749 Franklin had made a list of several ways in which lightning" is uncomfortably close to the source's "In November 1749 he made a list of a dozen ways in which lightning".

 Done Copy edited and reworded accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our article's "Franklin devised the theory that electricity is a single "fluid" that is in all matter" is uncomfortably close to reference [17] https://books.google.com/books?id=ivtsqD692DoC&pg=PA86 "Franklin developed a theory that electricity is a single "fluid" existing in all matter"

 Done Copy edited and reworded accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source [18] https://books.google.com/books?id=TTjZfCsYNfcC&pg=PA231 says nothing on the cited page about Franklin and appears to be pure spam. It should be removed as a source.

 Done Copy edited and reworded accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source [19], the same book as [5], is unavailable online. (This is not an actual problem, but given all the other sourcing issues it would be helpful to be reassured that someone has checked it.)

 Done Copy edited and reworded accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I may continue this, but each paragraph is turning up serious problems and (because of this) is taking quite a long time to review. It is becoming clear that the article is not yet ready for GA, and that it needs significant revision, removal of close paraphrasing, better attention to quality of sourcing, better attention to what the sources actually say, and a better focus on the machine itself. I can match up the issues I've found against the GA criteria if you think that would be a helpful exercise, but at this point I am ready to give up and declare this a fail. First, though, I'll try putting this on hold for a week to provide a chance to respond.—David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: I see you have a good understanding about electricity. Addressed the issues you brought up. Do you have any other concerns? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: I am in the process of making improvements and additions to the article. Can the review process be postponed for 7 days until after I have done this. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had been planning to start another pass this afternoon, but sure, I can wait another week. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: I am ready now for you to take another pass for a re-review. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second reading

[edit]

1. Writing quality and layout

Lead
Background
  • wires that lead": again, should be "led". The verb form of "lead" rhymes with "reed" and is present tense. Its past tense is "led". The word "lead", when pronounced to rhyme with "bed", can only be used for the noun referring to a type of heavy metal. Also, didn't an earlier version of the article say that the conductors were chains, not wires? =  Done - copy edited accordingly.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1746 Franklin began his electrical experiments": this sentence is misplaced in this section, as it is not about a description of the machine. =  Done - copy edited accordingly and put into the Background section.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Electrical principles
Lightning rod
Book on electricity?
  • "The significance of Franklin's electrostatic machine is that ultimately a science was developed out of electricity": really? This reads like a grade-school essay, like Bart Simpson's "In conclusion, Libya is a land of contrast." Also, it's not even about the ostensible subject of this section. If something like this belongs anywhere, it would be in the legacy section, but only if it can be made less trite. =  Done - copy edited accordingly.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It consisted of a spinning sphere of insulating material that was rubbed by a pad and a means of drawing off the static electricity produced.": for one thing, this is written as if there is only one machine when the previous sentence says most scientific labs had their own. For another, it is written as if this part of the description is new, how it differs from Franklin's machine, when really it is the same in its general design. =  Done - copy edited accordingly.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. Sourcing and original research.

This is where the biggest problems were in the previous reading. They included the use of inappropriately juvenile sources (too oversimplified to be reliable), claims that did not match their sources, and some close paraphrasing. The sources appear to have been selected more reliably now, and are consistently formatted in Citation Style 1. Some are offline but that is not an issue for GA.
Grimnes (footnotes 1 and 27) is online at https://books.google.com/books?id=-R-cAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA495 but has no courtesy link. =  Done - copy edited accordingly.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 2, the "electrocute a turkey" web site, does not actually seem to source any of the claims in its paragraph. =  Done - copy edited accordingly.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cohen 1990 is online and heavily used in footnotes 3 (pp.59–61) and 9 (p.28).
  • Footnote 3 is only used once and the actual page needed for that use is 61; pages 59-60 are superfluous. ==  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim "rubbed with certain non-conducting materials (i.e. buckskin)" is not supported by footnote 9, which says nothing about rubbing materials. ==  Done - copy edited accordingly, along with next sentence (Lemay p=71). The Cohen sources says, "Thus, electrical effects were produced by such 'artificial' circumstances as rubbing a piece of sulphur or amber or a rod of glass, or causing the sphere or cylinder of an electrostatic generator to rotate while in contact with a 'rubber'." Lemay (page 71) says, "...Franklin said, 'We had for some Time been of Opinion, that the Electrical Fire was not created by Friction, but collected, being an Element diffused among, and attached by other Matter."
  • "would produce a brief spark of electricity lasting less than a second" is also not supported, as the source only says "electrical effects". ==  Done - copy edited accordingly for electrical effects.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three consecutive sentences are sourced to footnote 9 and their sourcing could be merged. =  Done - copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He published a proposal for an experiment to be done where a person was to stand on an insulated stool inside a sentry box protected from the rain" is uncomfortably close in its phrasing to the source "He published a proposal to erect a kind of sentry box in which an experimenter might stand, protected from the rain, on an insulated stool". ==  Done - copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The significance of Franklin's electrostatic machine": contradicted by the source, which instead emphasizes the significance of his lightning experiments as bringing electricity away from parlor games and into the science of natural phenomena. =  Done - took out. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lemay 2009 is used in many footnotes: 4, 10, 11, 15, 19, 31, and 39. I was unable to preview the book and check the accuracy of these sources. =  Done - verified in library book.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 5 uses Crane 1954, again unavailable for preview. =  Done - verified in library book.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 6 is to Pasles 2008. It is used as one of three sources (but the only online one) to Franklin's relation to Collinson, non-problematically. =  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 8, a letter from Franklin, is paraphrased non-problematically. =  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 12 is to Finger 2012
  • Our article calls David Hall "partner" but the source calls him "foreman". =  Done provided reference of Waldstreicher (2005) to show that at that time Hall was a printing shop business partner of Franklin's, no longer his foreman. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the age of 42": not in the source. One could calculate it but that would require the exact date of the decision. =  Done copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Franklin then made a laboratory in his new home for experimenting and research on these new theories": not in the source. Nor is it in the other source, footnote 13, a web page on lightning rods that does not source anything else in our article. =  Done copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Franklin observed in using his electrostatic machine that pointed objects": contradicted by the source, which credits this observation to Thomas Hopkinson. =  Done copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 14 is to Tucker 2009.
  • Most of the last paragraph of "Background" relies on this source, to describe Franklin's frustration with the limitations of hand-rubbing and his use of the machine to save all that work. None of this is in the source. =  Done copy edited accordingly. There are now several references to this paragraph. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See below for why the rest of the sources remain unevaluated.
Somewhere under this criterion belongs the still-unfixed problem that conservation of charge is still described incorrectly. The actual principle is not about balance. It is that any object or system can be described by a numerical electrical charge, which may be positive in some cases and negative in others, and that the total of all these charges, within a closed system, never changes even though the charges of individual objects within the system may become redistributed. =  Done copy edited accordingly.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad but not overly detailed

The "lightning rod" section, while now a little shorter, is still almost entirely about the details of things that are not the electrostatic machine. I think this should be cut down to a single paragraph of the "Electrical principles" section.  Done - copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutrality: no problems found.

5. Stable: modulo recent changes in response to the review, yes.

6. Illustrations:

Better choice of lead image. Copyright concerns adequately responded to. But no response to my suggestion that this be identified as in the Franklin Institute?  Done - noted as being in that science museum.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sentry box image is not parameterized correctly; "|upright 1.50" should be "|upright=1.50". But in any case this parameter is pointless (even if such a large format were desirable) because the image will not display larger than its original pixel size, 152 pixels wide.  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Newly added pictures appear to be correctly licensed and reasonably captioned.  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Doug Coldwell: I'm going to put this on hold again. After getting through most of the GA criteria, but saving criterion 2 for last, and getting approximately 1/3 of the way through the sourcing evaluation, it became clear that the problems of close paraphrasing and of sources not backing up what they were used to source remained almost as bad as before. The article has not yet reached GA quality. And it is unclear whether the nominator has performed any attempts to discover problems of the nature described above on his own, or is merely waiting for them to be uncovered by the review. If the latter, there will surely remain additional problems in the sources I have not yet reviewed. One last chance to clean it up? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @David Eppstein: I am ready now for another re-review of the article. The main hard copy reference books from the MeL library I am using are The life of Benjamin Franklin, volume 3 : soldier, scientist and politician, 1748-1757 (2009) / J.A. Leo Lemay. -AND- Benjamin Franklin: Writings by J. A. Leo LeMay, (1987) -AND- Benjamin Franklin: In Search of a Better World by Page Talbott (2009) -AND- Benjamin Franklin: An American Life (2003) By Walter Isaacson. The others I found in Google Books. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third (and very partial) reading

[edit]

Looking just at "Background" paragraph 1:

Clearly, with this many problems in just the first non-lead paragraph, you have not done the "attempts to discover problems of the nature described above" on your own, instead of merely reacting to individual problems that others have already identified, as requested in the previous review. Since that review put it as "One last chance to clean it up", and the cleanup has not been properly performed, I am failing this. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Franklin%27s_electrostatic_machine/GA1&oldid=1142665076"