Talk:Corbett's electrostatic machine/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AhmadLX (talk · contribs) 22:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I will do this one. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Misc.

• The lead isn't representative summary of the article. Please expand.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Why do we have section separate section for Thomas Corbett? It should be merged into next section.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• What is a "physician botanist"? Please clarify this in the article.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Also "Shakers".

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Leyden jar-style battery" and then you've "The Leyden jar is a..." Why not just "battery" in the 2nd instance?

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• In the section "Description" you've present tense and in "Operation" you've past?

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• "The high voltage stored electrostatic charge kept in the Leyden jar was on the metal ball on top of the high voltage storage battery." Could you please rephrase this?

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: - I have addressed the issues you brought up. Can you take a look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Coldwell: My apologies, but I will need a couple more days to finish the review. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: GREAT. I am working on another GA and making several corrections - soooo, take your time pleeeeeasee!!!!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Corbett's experiments with electricity and its principles shows his interest in science and medicine." 1) This is irrelevant to this article. 2) This is partisan. Please remove this.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• What are "Electrical Principles" that the so name section is supposed to discuss? Any theoretical work in the field? Or something else? In any case, the section doesn't discuss any sort of "principles" and whatever is there is trivial and irrelevant, except for the last sentence, which should be moved to some other section.

 Done - removed section. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• What is an "Elder Sister"?

 Done - URL provided for snippet view of Sprigg(1990) book reference. Used lower case for elder sister.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Does the "sister" here mean a Nun or a biological sister of Elizabeth Lovegrove? If it is the latter case, then it should be "her elder sister".

Nun. Copy edited accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: - I have addressed these further issues you brought up. Can you take a look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Corbett's electrostatic machine consists of a 0.5-inch (13 mm) wooden base platform sitting on a 2-inch (51 mm) frame, forming a box. The wooden platform is about 12 inches (300 mm) wide and about 9 inches (230 mm) deep." So this 12 inch wide and 9 inch deep platform sits on a frame that has boundary-thickness of 2-inches. What does 0.5 inches refer to?

It refers to the bottom board that all the parts are mounted on top of. It is framed with a 2-inch solid fence around all these objects.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources & verifiability

• Sources accessible online do support claims and are of okay-ish standard. Books I cannot access but seem to be of reliable standard. Passing this on good faith.

Broadness

• This criterion is not fully met. It would have been better if there was a dedicated section to effectiveness (or otherwise), but given the nature of the subject and scarcity of available material, I am inclined to make a compromise on this.

Pass overall. --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

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