Talk:Franklin's electrostatic machine/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Headbomb (talk · contribs) 19:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this shortly. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   I've reworked a few paragraphs, fixed a couple of typos. The only thing remaining is that in the sentence "In the summer of 1747 they had received a complete electrical system from Thomas Penn." what exactly does 'a complete electrical system' mean here? Would it be better just to say "received an electrical system" and let the next sentence clarify? And then I'd also omit "complete " in the next sentence. I'll defer to Doug Coldwell (talk · contribs) here.
   Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Copy edited accordingly as suggested.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• I commend you on the OUTSTANDING improvements you made to the article. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

No more issues. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   No issues

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   No issue

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   1. In 1663 Otto von Guericke generated static electricity with a device that used a sphere of sulfur.
   2. Ref 31 is on Scribd. While it certainly is an interesting read, does this source meet WP:SPS?
      Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

   1. Reference provided of page 61 of LeMay - that I just happened to have taken a picture of --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
   2. removed Scribd source.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   No issue

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No issue

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   No issue

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   No issue

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Actually, according to Kite experiment, it is disputed if Franklin conducted that experiment, with [1]. If this is a mainstream viewpoint, this should be recognized.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No issue

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

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

   No issue

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

   No issue

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This is very close to GA status, IMO. An enjoyable read.
   Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Let me know if anything else should be corrected or improved. I'll get on it immediately.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The only thing that stands in the way is addressing my concerns for Ref 31. Also some concerns about the neutrality of the article on the kite and key experimentHeadbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Trying to figure out what to do on the kite and key experiment bit. Thinking on that = may have to get back to you on that one. Perhaps removing some parts in the article will do it?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Took out the part concerning the house key.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that's just sweeping the issue under the rug. Most readers will likely have heard of the kite experiment. I think the only thing that needs to be said is that the story is out there, but the standard account may not be 100% bang on, and that de Romas has a claim on priority. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb: O.K. Check back with me tomorrow. I have the LeMay (2009) Franklin book on my desk and have some ideas on things to add back in on the kite experiment, possibly on pages 104 & 105. Will need a night's sleep to get some RAMs back and will make those additions tomorrow.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• LeMay page 104
• LeMay page 105
• Franklin letter 19 October 1752
• @Headbomb: I'm working off these for ideas. --23:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

You might want to check Tucker, Tom (2003). Bolt of Fate: Benjamin Franklin & His Electric Kite Hoax. Public Affairs. ISBN 978-0756793326. (as mentioned in [2]) as well. Also [3] and Schiffer, Michael B. (2004). "Bolt of Fate: Benjamin Franklin and His Electric Kite Hoax (review)". Technology and Culture. 45 (4): 839–840. doi:10.1353/tech.2004.0202.. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Headbomb: Expanded article concerning Franklin's kite experiment and associated letter of October 19, 1752.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

With those edits, I have no further reservation and pass this article as fully complying with the GA criteria. Congratulations and thanks for your hard work! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)