Talk:Friedrich Accum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Friedrich Accum has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
April 1, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

WikiProject Echo has identified Friedrich Accum as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the German language Wikipedia.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

	This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

	Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

I'll translate from German. Bwwm 14:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty clearly a Featured Article, but I can't rate it any higher without it going through the formal process on English Wikipedia. I'd also have a really good editor go over it again to catch any problems with language from the translation. I found and corrected a few little things, but I may not have caught all of it. Very interesting article. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Proofread. Extra typos, etc., rooted out - language translation now seems fine. Ref ^(chew)(do) 03:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] London Gazette

in addition to the one I already added, London Gazette: no. 17212, page 160, 25 January 1817. Retrieved on 2008-02-25., records another Chemists he operated for some period up to January 1817, couldn't work out the best way to fir this into the article though (and perhaps neither is really significant enough in the scheme of things). David Underdown (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Needs more sources at a number of places, as well as some formatting and replacement of some unreliable sources

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Prose could use some copyediting, but it's not bad enough to hold back. Also some MOS issues

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I've pointed out some places that need sourcing and replacement of sources

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   A couple of places stray off into areas that are too detailed about subjects not really relevant to the article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• Lead paragraph has a number of short one and two sentence paragraphs. Could these be consolidated somewhat?
• Per WP:MOS#Conversions you should provide conversions between units of measurement. I used the convert template on the first one I found, but didn't do any others. Also, you use km as the primary unit in one place, and then use cubic feet later.
• The prose is okay, but tends towards a bit of wordiness. If you're at all thinking of FA for this article, I strongly urge a good copyedit for wordiness.

Yes, certainly. It's a product of the translation. --Bwwm (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please use Template:Persondata for biographies.
• A major concern is that parts of the article are uncited to any source. The first paragraph of Youth and education, the last paragraph of the first year in London , the last paragraph of Laboratory worker... and others. Generally every paragraph needs a source citation.
• Youth and education, the first paragraph has a lot of details about Christian which really aren't needed in an article about his son. Specifically the detailed description of who survived him.
• Also, you say that Christian died three years after his baptism in the second paragraph, but the first paragraph says he converted in 1755, one of these must be wrong.
• the statement "London, as an important centre of tehcnological development at the end of the 18th..." is opinion and needs a source.
• When you give the birth and death dates, per WP:MOS#Dates of birth and death you should use the dates bare, without the symbols you're using.
• Giving the details of the grandchildren and which child has surviving decendants gives the article a genealogical feel and probably could be cut as not relevant.
• Per WP:MOS#Quotations in italics block quotations should be in regular type, not italics.
• Teacher and researcher section, the last paragraph of the first paragraph is opinion and needs a source.
• Same section, fourth and fifth paragraphs have opinion and needs sources
• Last sentence of the third paragraph of Accum's role in the history of gaslight is opinion and needs a citation. Same for the last sentences of the fifth and sixth paragraphs.
• "There is death in the pot" section, the last sentence of the first paragraph is opinion and needs a source. Same for the last paragraph.
• Scandal and lawsuit section, I'm unclear on what exactly led to his fleeing England and what relation this has to the first paragraph of the section about the reaction to the publication of his book. If the reaction to the publication has nothing to do with the scandal, perhaps it might be best to put that information in its own subsection. If it is related, the article needs to do a better job of connecting the two events, as I can't see any connection right now.
• First paragraph of Return to Germany section is unsourced but has opinion in it ("... reaching a wide readership...") Second paragraph could use a source also.
• What are the superscripted numbers in the publications section supposed to be for? Also, in that section, you're linking to the google books pages for those editions, it might be better to format those as footnotes with the Google books page given as a web page reference.
• Further reading really should go before external links. Also, are works in the further reading section used in the footnotes? If so they need to either be listed in a bibliography section or fully cited in the references section. Further reading is used for books that are not used in the citations. Websites should be in the external links section rather than the Further reading section also.
• The books and websites listed in the references need publisher information with them.
• The current ref number 6 isn't a reliable published source as it's a personal communication. It's not a WP:RS and should be replaced. Same for current ref 46.
• Consider varying the placement of the pictures, putting some on the left side of the article.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I'll get to work on making those changes. --Bwwm (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't shoot me, but the new web references need publisher and last access date information. Best to use {{cite web}} for that. For the Google Books one, the publisher would be Google Books. The other ones need the same treatment. otherwise it looks good and I'll be happy to promote when that's done! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Phew! All done. --Bwwm (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I knew it was a lot of work, kudos for doing it! Passing the article now. I really do reccommend a Peer Review and a couple of good copyedits before FA, if you're heading that way. The prose works, it just isn't quite FA status yet. The article is interesting though, and I'd love to see it at FAC sometime! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for taking the time to review. I know it wasn't an easy article to review because it's fairly lengthy. It was on the nominations page for a long time. --Bwwm (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)