Talk:History of the metric system/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 10:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

Sorry for the delay, I took ten days off. I'm going to start a quick read of the article (a bit of a "contradiction in terms" since this is a long article) to get my thoughts on it; and then I'll start adding comments to this review page. Pyrotec (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I've now done a quick read of the article, but I've not yet checked any of the citations; and, on this basis, the article in general appears to be well referenced and quite comprehensive. It appears to be at or about GA-level, but there are a few obvious, if relatively minor, "problems". For instance in Development of underlying principles and its first unnamed subsection the text "Most writers credit Simon Stevin with introducing the decimal system into general use in Europe." is repeated almost word for word in both section / subsections. The article uses both "Notes" and "References" and several of the numbered "References" are not references, they are "Notes". Pyrotec (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

In respect of Stevin, please see "Response 1" below. Martinvl (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

In respect of "Notes and References", please see "Response 2" below. Martinvl (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm now going to work my way through the article starting at the Development of underlying principles section and finishing with the Lead. Pyrotec (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Development of underlying principles

• • untitled subsection -

• The statement "Most writers credit Simon Stevin with introducing the decimal system into general use in Europe." is a controversial statement that could be challenged or is likely to be challenged, a citation is needed to support it. (See WP:WIAGA Clause 2(b).)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Its unclear from the article what reference 4 is. Looking at the format it could possibly be a Journal or a website; but going into edit mode it is (inadequately) cited as {{cite web}}. It should be properly cited.

Please see "Response 3 below" Martinvl (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Work of Simon Stevin -

• The first sentence is almost a repeat of that in the untitled subsection (see above comments), the only difference appears to the the minor expansion "Flemish mathematician". Again, its uncited; and is the "most writers" clause needed, without it the sentence would be less open to challenge as a controversial statement?

Please see "Response 1 below" Martinvl (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Y Thanks. The current subsection is considerable improvement. Pyrotec (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Otherwise, this subsection is OK.

• • Work of John Wilkins & Work of Gabriel Mouton -

• I added a wikilink for minute of arc, as otherwise the article would fail to define it.
• These two subsections appear to be compliant.

• • 17th Century developments -

• This subsection appears to be compliant.

• • 18th Century international cooperation -

...Stopping for now. To be continued, soon. Pyrotec (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• I made a few clarifications to this section, rather than listing them here and waiting for them to be done. On this basis, I regard this subsection to be compliant.

• • Roles of Wilkins and Mouton -

• This subsection reads more like an essay than an encyclopaedia, the first two paragraphs would benefit from a copyedit. The final one, in contrast, appears to be more encyclopaedic in its content.

See "Response 4".

• Y Thanks. The current subsection is considerable improvement. Pyrotec (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Implementation in Revolutionary France (1792–1812)

• • untitled subsection, Decimal time (1793) & Angular measure (c1793) -

• These three subsections appear to be compliant.

• • Draft metric system (1795) -

...Stopping for now. To be continued, soon. Pyrotec (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• This subsection appears to be compliant.

• • Meridianal definition & Mètre des Archives -

• Further to my comments at Response 2, I'd suggest that the current ref 65 (The technical difficulties were not the only problems the surveyors ....) is a Note and not a Reference. This comment also seems to apply to References 66 and 68, which means that the two statements each of these Ref is appended to are unreferenced.

See "Response 2"

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Otherwise, these two subsections appear to be compliant.

• • Kilogramme des Archives -

...Stopping for now. To be continued, probably on Sunday. Pyrotec (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The first paragraph (a single sentence) is unreferenced.

I have removed this sentence. (It was a parasitic leftover from am earlier edit). Martinvl (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Leaving aside the problem of English Variants (metre / meter), we now got a few stray "grammes", or is this just the plural (in French) of gram? But again, this seems to be at variance with the Draft metric system (1795) subsection. What is the name of these two base units (well one unit and a multiplier)?

See "Response 5".

• Y Yes, its much better now. Pyrotec (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Worldwide adoption of the metric system

• • France: Mesures usuelles (1812–1839) , The Dutch metric system , The German Zollverein & Spain -

• These four subsections appear to be compliant.

• • United Kingdom and the Commonwealth -

• The second half of the second paragraph is unreferenced. The statements "Meanwhile British scientists and technologists were at the forefront of the metrication movement - it was the British Association for the Advancement of Science that promoted the cgs system of units as a coherent system and it was the British firm Johnson Matthey that was accepted by the CGPM in 1889 to cast the international prototype metre and kilogram." need a citation(s).

• Done Martinvl (talk) 05:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Otherwise this subsection is OK.

• • United States -

• This subsection is OK.

Development of a coherent metric system

I think that this section might need a copyedit. Some of the material in Time, work and energy subsection is really an introduction to the Electrical units subsection, and the time frame moves backwards and forwards.

See "Response 6"

• • untitled first subsection -

• This is uncited so I'll take it as a short summary subsection (and basically ignore it).
• Would it benefit from a {{main}} or {{seealso}} link to Centimetre–gram–second system of units & International System of Electrical and Magnetic Units? I'm aware that both articles are wikilinked in the following subsections.

I don't think so - See "Response 6"

I may come back to this point. Pyrotec (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• There is a problem with the current wording of This concept, which enabled thermal, mechanical, electrical are relativistic systems to be interlinked was first formally proposed in 1861 using length, mass and time as base units., I think the following words need a minor copy edit: ".... electrical are relativistic systems... ". Pyrotec (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Done "are" => "and" Martinvl (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, if I'd "seen the solution" I would have changed it myself. It was such an easy change, but it had me baffled yesterday. Pyrotec (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Time, work and energy -

• The second paragraph claims that "....Guass, ...... thereby implicitly making time a base dimension of the metric system.", perhaps that is so, but the reference states "Gauss was the first to make absolute measurements of the Earth’s magnetic field in terms of a decimal system based on the three mechanical units millimetre, gram, and second for, respectively, the quantities length, mass, and time" which is not quite the same thing. For the wikipedia claim to be true, no one could have used speed (velocity), which has distance & time as base units, before Gauss's measurements. That seems somewhat inconceivable to me.

Your observation is noted. I have reworded the section to clarify what I was getting at. Martinvl (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

How about: In 1832 Carl-Friedrich Gauss made the first absolute measurements of the Earth's magnetic field using a decimal system based using the millimetre, milligram, and second as the base unit of time.[1]:109 --> In 1832 Carl-Friedrich Gauss made the first absolute measurements of the Earth's magnetic field using a decimal system based using on the use of the millimetre, milligram, and second as the base unit of time.[1]:109? Pyrotec (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Done Martinvl (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• In the same paragraph, I would ask if the final portion "The CGS unit of energy was the "erg", but the SI unit of energy was named the "joule" in honour of Joule." would be better as a Note, since it is uncited and the erg and the CGS system are covered in more detail in the final (fourth) paragraph (and both of these terms are referenced / cited there)?

Current text retained, but citations added. Martinvl (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• The third paragraph is an introduction to the Electrical units subsection, which follows.

No, it refers to dynamic and electrical, not just electrical - See "Response 6"

• • Electrical units -

• The first section about Ohm / Ohms law is uncited and it not really a summary of what follows, its new material. In contrast, the following sentence about the three CGS systems, seems to be the link between the third paragraph of Time, work and energy and the remainder of Electrical units

See "Response 6" Martinvl (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• The first section about Ohm / Ohms law is uncited. Pyrotec (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Done Martinvl (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• The abbreviations EMU and ESU undefined but they appear to be Electromagnetic units (EMU) and Electrostatic units (ESU). They are to be found in the article Centimetre–gram–second system of units.

Done Martinvl (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Y. Thanks. 20:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

...Stopping for now. To be continued, probably on Thursday. Pyrotec (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• OK, looking at the current subsection (which is an improvement), it states: ".... - at least four different systems of units were devised. In the three CGS systems, ....". There are four sub-subsection titles EMU and ESU (for short), Gaussian units and Practical system. I presume that the three CGS systems are EMU, ESU and Gaussian, but could that be made clearer (stated explicitly)?
• I'm not too keen on subsection titles with links and neither is Wikipedia:Manual of Style, could these be changed to non-linked titles with the links provided close by?
• I also assume that Practical system could be outdented, rather than indented as per the three above, but still included as part of Electrical units.
• It's link is to MKS units and this section is CGS. MKS does not get mentioned until much later in the International System of Units (SI) section at the end of the article. This subsection / sub-subsection ends up at International System of Electrical and Magnetic Units, so I would question why the title is a link to MKS system of units?

• (See also below).

I believe that I have fixed all the above. Martinvl (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• • A coherent system & Naming the units of measure -

• These two subsection look to be compliant.
• Could the Practical system subsection be usefully moved into on of these?

Convention of the metre

• This section looks to be compliant.

Twentieth century

....Sorry, I'm stopping for now. I will try and finish the body of the article tomorrow afternoon, otherwise it will be Friday. Pyrotec (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Metre, Time, Luminosity, Temperature & Mole -

• This five subsections are OK.

• • Kilogram -

• A trivial "problem", but IPK seems to be used here, and only here, but its not defined. Also the final paragraph is unreferenced.

IPK has been wikilinked & references to it tidied up. Citation added to final paragraph.Martinvl (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Otherwise OK.

• • Electrical units -

• Ref 101, (Satellite Today) seems to have some "link-rot", it gives a 404 error, so this subsection is in effect uncited. I'm not sure whether the original reference was a journal (in electronic form) or a web page, since it was not fully cited.

Article was originally published in full. The full text has now been moved behind a paywall - I have changed the URL to reference the paywall version. Martinvl (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I have found alternative citations for two of the three occurrences of this citation. Martinvl (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

International System of Units (SI)

• This section looks compliant.

Lede

I'll look at this during the weekend and hopefully will be able to "close this review" as a "pass". Pyrotec (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This is quite a comprehensive article and within a four-paragraph constraint (see WP:Lead), the lede does provide both a good introduction to the topic of this article and a summary of the main points given in the body of the article. I'm, therefore, going to close this review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposer's responses

I have taken the liberty of adding text such as "Response 1", "Response 2" etc to the reviewer's comments and am expanding on them here. I suggest that discussion should take place here and that the reviewer formally note when each discussion is closed within his review.

• Response 1 - The text in the "untitled subsection" is designed to be a lede for the section concerned. I have attempted to follow this style throughout the article. Nevertheless, I will be expanding the subsection "Work of Simon Stevin" slightly by mentioning the use of decimal numbers by Arab mathematicians during the Medieval era and by looking for a citation for "most writers". Martinvl (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Done Martinvl (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Response 2 - I have always been a little unhappy with this section - I have used the term "Notes" to refer to explanations that have no citation and the term "References" to the list of in-line citations. I am open to suggestions on what nomenclature I should use for these sections. Martinvl (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is only a partial response as I've not yet reviewed the relevant subsections, I may expand later. Several citations have been added, so the numbers have been changed slightly (up by five, I think) since I started reading the article. The current reference 66 (and possibly) 67 and 68 look more like footnotes (or notes) rather than citations. They looked out of place in "References": "Notes" seemed to be a better home for them. Pyrotec (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
• I have converted references 66 and 68 (as per numbering above) into notes. I plan to work reference 67 into the text. Martinvl (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Done Martinvl (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Response 3 - Reference 4 (Dominus) is actually a blog entry. I included it because Naughtin referred to it and the BBC (a reliable source) referred to Naughtin. The date of the blog entry is significant as it was the trigger for including references to Wilkins' work. I am open to suggestions how best to handle these citations. Martinvl (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification. It had the "look" of a mis- (or perhaps not fully-) cited journal. I would generally tend to rule out the use of blogs unless they were reliable sources, such as the chairman of the BBC commenting on the BBC, or comparable situations. Blogs don't seem to be covered in the {{cite web}} template, so I can't suggest any "approved format". Pyrotec (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
• Done - I have amended the list of citations and removed Dominus. Rather than include Dominus (who is mentioned in Naughtin's paper anyway), I have emphasized on the publicity given by Naughtin. (See citation mentioned in Response 4). Martinvl (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Response 4 - This section reached its current form after a number of attacks by other editors alleging a non-neutral approach - in particular that Naughtin and Dominus were both self-published. I have therefore tried to word it in such a way that I do not reflect any of Naughtin's or Dominus' views while at the same time showing why reliable sources that are post-Naughtin differ from those that are pre-Naughtin. Martinvl (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Done - Copy-edit complete. I found a reference that was published since I last looked at this section - that reference enabled me to by-pass the fact that both Naughtin and Dominus were self-published. Martinvl (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Response 5 - I agree that it is a little messy - possibly I need to go through the whole of the section "Implementation in Revolutionary France (1792-1812)" and standarise things. I propose the following:

• Proper nouns should be in French and be written in italics
• Names of units in sentences that refer to an action that took place before 1800 should be in French and be written in italics.
• Names of units in sentences that refer to an action that took place after 1800 should be in English.
• Names of objects should be in modern English ("gram", not "gramme")

I will also look at other sections and will try to introduce some uniformity there as well. In particular, in the section "France: Mesures usuelles (1812–1839)", I propose replacing

"Likewise the livre was defined as being 500 g, each livre comprising sixteen once and each once eight gros and the aune as 120 centimetres"

with

"Likewise the livre was defined as being 500 g, each livre comprising sixteen once and each once eight gros and the aune as 120 cm".

Before I go ahead with this, do you have any comments? Martinvl (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy for you to improve consistency, but I'm not sure about the 1800 cutoff date (before and after): in France 1799 was the implementation date for mass and length standards (so 1800 is a minor rounding of dates). However, in the next section Worldwide adoption of the metric system much of Europe seems to have legally adopted metric but practically implemented it by redefining metric units in the the terminology of Mesures usuelles units. Perhaps 1875 and the Convention du Mètre might be another (or better) cut off date? However, as a reviewer, I have no preference. Pyrotec (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll settle for 1804 (or thereabouts) - the date that the word "kilogram" first appeared in the English Language. I will check the OED for the exact date and make a note of it at an appropriate place. Martinvl (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Done - the French spelling ("[kilo]gramme", is now entirely in italics, the modern English spelling "[kilo]gram" is not.

BTW, I found a paper written in an English journal dated 1797 written by a French diplomat that describes the metric system which I have included as a citation. The OED lists this as the earliest reference to "kilogram" etc in the English language.Martinvl (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Response 6 - I did not mean the lede to be an introduction to electrical units - the section is really (or should) show how power and energy are the same in mechanical, electrical and any other physical system. The crucial sentence in the subsection is

"Energy became the unifying concept of nineteenth century science, initially by bringing thermodynamics and mechanics together and later adding electrical technology and relativistic physics leading to Einstein's equation $E=mc^{2}$".

There were problems is extending the concept to electrical systems because Kelvin and Maxwell were not using an electrical unit - this was proposed by Giorgi in 1901. The only reason that that so much of the subsection is devoted to electrical units is because Kelvin and Maxwell could not get it right and their "bodges" (if I may use the term) continued until the introduction of SI. Maybe I did not get this across clearly. In light of this, could I ask you to revisit your comments? I will however be answering some of them. Martinvl (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that the lede previously misled the reader about the purpose of the section. I have rewritten the lede which I think explains why the section is there. The crucial sentence in the subsection is

"Energy became the unifying concept of nineteenth century science, initially by bringing thermodynamics and mechanics together and later adding electrical technology and relativistic physics leading to Einstein's equation $E=mc^{2}$". Martinvl (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

General

I have reformatted some of your review headers as 4th level article headers. This was to simplify my editing. I trust that this is in order. Martinvl (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I've never used 4th level article headers in a GAN / GAR review before. It seems a bit strange, but I'll get used to it. Pyrotec (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This review has taken much longer than I would have anticipated (some six weeks). Thanks very much for your patience. I'm now happy to be able to award this article GA-status. Congratulations on getting this article to up this standard. Furthermore, there is a lot of information contained with in this article and it is well referenced. I believe that this article could in due course become a FA, but WP:PR would be the next logical step. Pyrotec (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)