Talk:Matthew Boulton

Assessment

Having just looked at this article I think it rates the New C class ( was assessed Start in 2007) as has an ibox, photos and reasonable amount of content, and with better referencing would be a B candidadate, with a bit of work to layout. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Old unsigned Comment

Someone (i.e., someone more knowledgable about the subject than I) should add a section about the incest scandal involving him, cited in the "Incest" article.

New book coming out on him in July, should have that. Meantime, I'm going to work on making this article at least GA class. Have ordered a ref, there's an article on him in World Coin News, and should be more on Google Books.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Death dates

We now have different, uncited, dates of death in the body of the article, and the infobox. Which (with citation, please) is correct? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Well spotted! --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Starting work on improvement

Boulton's bicentennial of death is in August, I'm at least going to take a shot at getting it FA by then. Help needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Boulton and Watt engine

Newcomen's engines were specifically pumping engines and had lift, but no thrust. This meant that their application was very limited. Watt's various innovations led to the development of an engine that had thrust as well as lift ie. it pushed and pulled. Moreover, where Necomen's engine could only pull a flexible chain, Watt's engine could push and pull a rigid rod. This fact meant that it could be made (with the aid of a gear) to turn a wheel around. Once the "rotative steam engine" was developed, it could be used to drive the machinery in a factory, in place of a water wheel.

The article mentions the use of the engines in mines. It also needs to mention the use of rotative engines to power factories. The engine on display in the Science Museum, and depicted in the article is one of these engines, and, although no longer operational, is the oldest known in its original state. The Powerhouse Museum in Sydney has a fully operational engine of which some sections are older, but which was subsequently modified and shows many of Watt's later improvements, including a cast iron beam, rather than the wooden one of the Science Museum engine. These engines were absolutely integral to the Industrial Revolution. They became the power for England's wool and cotton mills, as well as all sorts of other factories. They led to the development of a portable engine that could chuff along on its own flywheels (though how still bemuses engineers). They led to the steam ship.

I'm not suggesting that all this should go into the article. However, Matthew Boulton's relationship with Watt was one that transformed the world, and not just because it improve the efficiency and safety of mines. It is the rotative nature of the engine that is the key to this. While the separate condensor made the engine more efficient, it was "Watt's parallel linkage" that made the "push and pull" action possible. Although one is not supposed to use superlatives on Wikipedia, this is one of the most exquisite engineering solutions of all time. Amandajm (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well put. I've added a paragraph that I think will answer your concern. Thanks! I'm not an expert on either engines or Boulton's coins, but now I've had the advise of people who know more than I do about each, and it's really helped the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic!

Re the question of whether Boulton and Watt was the name of the firm..... my rethink is that I don't honestly know. The engines are known as "Boulton and Watt" engines, ...... More later.Amandajm (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The title listed in "Further reading" - Roll, Erich and Smith, J. G. An Early Experiment in Industrial Organisation: Being a History of the Firm of Boulton & Watt, 1775–1805 (Longmans and Green, 1930). - may help with this, if anyone can access it in library.--mervyn (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

None of my references refer to it as anything but Boulton & Watt.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Relationship with Wedgwood

Boulton manufactured the small metal setting for Wedgwood cameos as jewellery etc, and was probably the provider of the small ormolu settings used when Wedwood cameos were set into furniture. The Powerhouse holds an item. I recall that the setting is not silver but a silver-coloured alloy of Boulton's invention. ..... I've just been searching through my books for some reference and can't find it. Amandajm (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Wish I had been into this article when I was in Sydney in March! Was it Sheffield plate, which is discussed in the article?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Semi-colons

I keep deleting them because their use is nearly always inappropriate.

Here is an example from the text which constitutes correct use.

Before construction, the cost of the principal building alone had been estimated at £2,000[21] (about £276,000 today); it proved to cost five times that amount.

In this case the two joined sentences are very closely related in meaning, there being a conflict between the two statements and the former impacting on the reader's understanding of the latter.

Although this is not incorrect, the sentences could be more effectively linked by the addition of the word "although". Drop the "it proved".

Before construction, the cost of the principal building alone had been estimated at £2,000[21] (about £276,000 today), although ultimately the cost was five times that amount.

Or:

Although before construction, the estimated cost of the principal building was £2,000[21] (about £276,000 today), the actual cost was five times that amount.

Amandajm (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the article is currently at FAC, could I ask you to state your concerns there? I'm not sure exactly how to answer, the article has been copyedited by two experienced editors who haven't raised red flags at the semicolons, and I'd rather have this thrashed out with everyone, literally, on the same page, rather than splitting things up between this talk page and there. Thanks for your efforts to improve the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that many people might think I was nit-picking. I don't think that the semi-colons will make or break an FA.

Here's a reference that I found online to the association with Wedgwood. [1] I'll see if I can track down some more.

Amandajm (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Here we are! The Wedgwood Museum, a thoroughly reliable online source. Wedgwood Museum

Amandajm (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at it when I get a chance, but don't want to add much to the article, which is getting long. Perhaps expand on the mention in the ormolu section.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of Boulton-made items

Shoemaker's Holiday thinks he might be able to go to Birmingham and take pictures of Boulton-related items. Is there a particular museum that would be relevant for this? Awadewit (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a major Boulton exhibition going on until the end of September at Birmingham Museums & Art Gallery, Gas Hall Exhibition Gallery. If he goes, he should try for silver and ormolu, but I'll take anything. Except that disputed picture of a sword from the V&A, there's nothing free on the web. I was looking for American museums displaying his stuff, the nearest to me is in Delaware and all they have are lamps. Thanks to you and SH!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Have passed the info along - thanks! Awadewit (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll do what I can. I should be clear that I do not have a particularly good camera, so we're going to end up with not particularly great photos, but that's still, of course, better than the "no photos at all" of present. In the unlikely event anyone knows of someone willing to lend a better camera for a week, please let me know. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wish I could help. Thanks for your help! I think there is a very good chance this will pass FA shortly and hopefully be TFA on August 17, and it would be great to have shots of Boulton's decorative arts for the big day!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I speak from experience; silver is darn hard to photograph. I'd get the ormolu first, esp if you are breaking museum rules. But they teach any photographer, better to apologize after than ask permission before!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If he's still planning on going, he should try for one of the spectacular ormolu clocks, he'll know them when he sees them. I have the exhibition catalog, so he doesn't have to worry about identification, I'll piece it together. I am going to be in England and in Birmingham in late September, before the exhibit closes, but that is obviously after the bicentennial minute. I've got an iron or two in the fire if that fails, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

FA!

Yay! Now on to see if we can get this main page on August 17! Wild party in the sandbox first tonight!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just going to respond to my FA comments. Shall I hold off until people have recovered from the hangovers? Awadewit (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I had saved some wine for you. Why not make suggestions here? We want to have this article in great shape for possible TFA on August 17.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Amandajm (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Great! This has been a crazy week for me and I'm leaving town really soon. I promise to get back to this in about a week or so! Awadewit (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry this has taken me so long! Awadewit (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved FAC comments

• Comprehensiveness: It was revealed in the comments at the FAC about Boulton and his relationship to the Industrial Revolution that there is debate among historians about precisely what Boulton's role in the Industrial Revolution was. I think that some of this debate needs to be included in the article. Boulton's place in the larger historical tapestry needs to be made clear to readers and if there is debate about that, so does the debate. I would envision a small paragraph on this issue. Awadewit (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Prose: I still think that the "Other activities" section could flow a bit better - the paragraphs still seem to change abruptly from topic to topic. Awadewit (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently away and don't have my refs with me. I'll be home in a week.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I still haven't gotten to it but I am not sure the Industrial Revolution thing is something we'll be able to address in full, because there seem to be so many divergent views on it. I'll work on the prose first, that is hopefully easy.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to address the Industrial Revolution "in full", but we do need to address it in part. For example, we don't need to offer all of the competing views on how the Industrial Revolution started. What we do need to mention are the mainstream views on Boulton's contribution to it. Awadewit (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, not a problem. I'll look for a few and get them in next week, in time for TFA day, as well as views I can find against it. A balanced cpuple of paragraphs, I'm figuring.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

How's this going? Awadewit (talk) 06:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Awadewit, I ran out of time before I left the country (only temporarily) and I can't access anyting substantive on Google books right now. If you want to throw together something quickly, it is cool, otherwise I will make it top priority when I get home on Friday.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

...and yet more Congratulations

on getting on the main page! Sorry I missed the party! Amandajm (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still cleaning up the article from it! Most edits are keepable and I won't touch them accordingly, the worst are the date links. Totally useless. But thanks for the congrats.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)