Talk:Cooke and Wheatstone telegraph

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Cooke and Wheatstone telegraph has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology 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.
WikiProject Telecommunications (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject United Kingdom (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Images[edit]

Telegraph received shown pointing to letter "G". "C" should be "D".

Tabletop (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Power Source[edit]

There is no information regarding the power source used for sending and receiving telegraphs. As the first power station was built in 1882 (Cooke and Wheatstone's telegram was invented in 1837) there was no electrical grid to connect the telegram to. Without explaining how the telegraph functioned this article is seriously lacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iranian86Footballer (talkcontribs) 20:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Batteries? 86.166.71.0 (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Good article nomination[edit]

This article is being nominated for good article status, since it satisfies the good article criteria:

  • Well-written: Although it is a technical article, it uses grammar and terminology that is easy for most readers to understand. It is structured according to WP:LAYOUT and other Wikipedia guidelines.
  • Verifiable with no original research: It has a good list of verifiable references, and these references are appropriately cited throughout the article.
  • Broad in its coverage: It covers not just the invention, but also information about the inventors, and the interesting related fact of how it was used to apprehend a criminal.
  • Neutral: There is no apparent bias.
  • Stable: Copyediting will undoubtedly take place, since it was just included as a DYK article.
  • Illustrated, if possible, by images: It contains several images of the invention itself, how it us used, and of associated persons.

Truthanado (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Excellent article, thanks! Wizzy 14:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cooke and Wheatstone telegraph/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

On first pass, this looks quite solid and ripe for promotion. I only have one small issue I've seen so far (below), but note that I've also done some minor copyediting as I went, and in one case, moved an image. If you disagree with any of my tweaks, please feel free to revert.

  • "The number of codes that can be obtained from 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... needles is 2, 6, 12, 20, 30 ... [1] respectively." -- I'm confused by the external link in this sentence. Is this meant to be a reference? It also appears to be a dead link.
  • It is a link to the integer sequence, it's not dead, it was just malformed. I've now formatted it as a ref and used the OEIS template. It is part ref and part further information for more terms in the sequence. By the way, it was not me who nominated the article for GA, while I am happy to provide information, I think the nominator should take the lead in dealing with GA issues/comments. SpinningSpark 21:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks--as it happens, that was all I needed, so we're all set. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Checklist[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Prose is clear, and spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. An external link appears in the text--is this meant to be reference?
2b. 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.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass

Error in codes for I and E[edit]

Question: Why do the letters I and E in the 5 needle system have three inclined needles and not just two? Is the image correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.195.178.129 (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

They are errors, probably from copy and paste of one code to the next. Thanks for spotting that, it should be fixed now. SpinningSpark 13:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

RFC notification[edit]

There is a request for comment at Electrical telegraph which concerns this article. SpinningSpark 19:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)