Talk:Tower mill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mills (Rated Stub-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mills, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mills 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Tower Mill general critique[edit]

The article for the most part is somewhat well written. It does have some grammar mistakes and the wording is at times somewhat hard to follow. As a result the author is not able to get some of his/her points across. That said, the article does a very nice job of listing many examples of tower mills as well as giving a very thorough list of the parts in the tower mill as well as definitions of these parts. This extensive use of examples though tends to bog down the article's flow, as the reader tends to focus on the numerous examples presented in the article, instead of focusing on the points the author is making. The author could spend a little more time focusing on the importance of tower mills in society, but for the most part the article is well written and does a good job of discussing what a tower mill is, how it was developed, and providing examples of this type of mill. The authors sources are cited very well. The references that he used to make this article address the topic thoroughly and are well used by the author to provide sources of information. The illustrations provided by the author are very pretty and aesthetically pleasing, however a picture illustrating the inner workings of a tower mill would've been very useful. The author is able to cover his subject thoroughly, however more time could've been spent on the initial creation of tower mills, and the impact they had on the society at the time. The article is very succinct and to the point. The only issue that could be made is that it provides too many listings of different tower mills. Wikipedia seems to have a very open attitude towards contributions from outside sources, unlike conventional encyclopedias which are much more reticent to change, and tend to follow a very strict guideline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-10jfrymiar (talkcontribs) 01:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Rotatable tower mills in the Netherlands?[edit]

"However, select tower mills found around Holland were constructed on a wooden frame so as to rotate the entire foundation of the mill along with the cap. These towers were often constructed out of wood rather than masonry as well." I never heard of those. If paltrok mills are meant, these are commonly seen as a development of post mills, not tower mills. Maybe someone can check the source? Reboelje (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Critique-Tower Mill[edit]

The article outlines a brief history of the tower windmill, its many uses, and the different types which existed of this advancement in wind technology. The article, however, does have a few problems. The style of the writing is awkward and unclear in places, as well as being slightly wordy. Besides this, the writing is not of the quality one would expect to find in an article for the general public. Since the wording is awkward and unclear, it could easily confuse a person who is a novice of the subject of tower mills and perhaps windmills in general. The writing of the article, then, could use some improvements to make the content better understood by the viewer. The sources of this article could also do with a brief overhaul because a few of them are slightly outdated. Many of the sources, however, do come from academic intuitions, such as the Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press. The fact that so many of the sources do from academic journals or are published by universities presses is excellent because it means that the good bit of the article is accurate. The other sources which are not from academic journals are questionable because they are from publishers that are not well known. These sources then are not very authoritative because anyone could have written them. The sources from the academic journals are authoritative and complete because they have all gone through extensive peer review and editing. The illustrations in the article are actually very useful and accurate. They showcase a number of different variations in tower mills and demonstrate the fact that tower mills were very popular because of their technological enhancement over post mills. The illustrations are further useful because they give the reader/viewer an excellent idea of how much bigger tower mills were as oppose to post mills. Additionally, the illustrations are good because the article is not overburdened with too many of them. The article, unfortunately, does not cover the subject thoroughly in all aspects. The article only provides a brief overview of tower mills and their many functions. However, it does break down the different parts of the tower mill nicely, which is very useful especially if one wants a quick reference for that purpose. The economic importance of the tower mill is slightly discussed, but this important principle/function of the tower mill should be developed more because it really did transform the economy of Europe. Another accept of the tower mill that is not thoroughly addressed is the development of more sails on the tower mills. No exact timeline is given for when the number of sails started increasing, nor if the trend was related to certain times of production. The cultural significance of tower mills is also glossed over and could be discussed more because it would give the reader/viewer more insight into the development of these mills in different countries. In regard to the article being marred by frivolous or spurious contributions, the article is not overall marred by inane contributions. The only place in the article where any frivolous or spurious contributions are made is in the “Interesting Facts” section. Some of the information contained in this section, especially the part concerning the expense of building a tower mill, would be much better situated in the “History” section because this information helps explain why tower mills were fewer in number. The other sections of the article all contain appropriate information, and therefore, are not marred with unnecessary information. The “Interesting Facts” section is a good idea because it creates a place for information which does not quite fit into the other sections, but it needs to be improved. A suggestion for how to improve the section is to divided it into subheading by country, then add facts about tower mills from each region. This way the information would be neatly organized, plus it would be very informative. The treatment of this subject here, in Wikipedia, compared to that in a conventional encyclopedia is vastly different. In a conventional encyclopedia, the subject tower mill is grouped into either the broad windmill entry or a discussion of it can be found in articles that deal with the technology of energy conversion. The subject of tower mills, then, is usually grouped into a broader category in conventional encyclopedias unlike here, on Wikipedia, were it has its own article. The only other suggestions for improvements to this page are, again, that the writing/wording needs to be seriously looked over and the “Interesting Facts” section needs to be reorganized. The illustrations are great and no improvements need to be made in regard to them. Some of the sources do need to be looked over again because they are either out of date or are from questionable publishers. Besides the need for these improvements, the article does a fairly good job of introducing one to the subject of the tower mill. HIST406-13JWHIPPL3 (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)