Talk:Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom

Then it should be Cooke initially made a telegraph with a clockwork detent mechanism operating electromagnets then abandoned it in favour of needles after scientific advice or Cooke initially made a telegraph with a clockwork detent mechanism operating electromagnets then abandoned it after scientific advice

That suggestion is putting things out of historical order again. This edit was made to put the events in historical order as a result of the point raised below. The original version was actually much closer to what you are now asking for. Can I ask you to revisit that version which may be a better starting point. SpinningSpark 22:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is really decent of you to rewrite the section. I did have quite a substantial paragraph laid but I had a look at some sources and it seems to reflect the structure you have already. I think the work shouldn't be here, but in the Cooke article, which is sadly lacking. When taken in light what I have read it and the linking in section context, for want of a word, it seems to ok. I still don't like the way it is structured, but at least the reasons for it and once the Cooke article is updated I will be better. Close it. Yscope_creep^Talk 17:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Cooke had initially been inspired to build a telegraph after seeing a demonstration of a needle telegraph Inspired. Ok sentence but why is mentioned now when it is already stated built a device and spoke to people.
  • It was to keep the discussion of the choice of needle telegraphs in one place. If it hadn't been for Wheatstone recommending that path, Cooke would never have gone down it and the early playing with needles would hardly have been worth mentioning at all. But I've reorganised the whole para and historical order works just as well. SpinningSpark 00:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much better structured. Y scope_creep^Talk 16:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• five needles Was that not because the Baudot was 5 characters groups?
  • No, the Baudot code came much later than C&W. The reason that five needles was chosen and the code used are fully explained in the Cooke and Wheatstone telegraph article. SpinningSpark 15:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never knew that. Y scope_creep^Talk 23:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Both applications were for signalling with rope-hauled trains and both railways rejected electrical telegraph signalling in favour of steam-driven whistles Should it not be but
  • Done. SpinningSpark 11:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 12:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The first success came in 1838 when a five-needle telegraph was installed by the Great Western Railway from Paddington station to West Drayton and used on the stations between Paddington and West Drayton
  • I don't think so. In "the M1 was built from London to Birmingham" we wouldn't necessarily add "...with junctions at every intervening town." SpinningSpark 11:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The cables were originally laid in underground conduit in an
  • Done. SpinningSpark 11:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 12:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The profession of telegraph operator had been created for the first time Possibly The new profession of telegraph operator known as a Telegraphist was created for the first time.
  • Done. SpinningSpark 11:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 12:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Slough. Should be linked.
  • Done. SpinningSpark 11:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 13:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Insulators. Should be linked.
  • Done. SpinningSpark 11:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 13:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This extension was done at Cooke's own expense, the railway company was unwilling to finance a system it still considered experimental This extension was done at Cooke's own expense as the railway company was unwilling to finance a system it still considered experimental
  • Done. SpinningSpark 14:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 13:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A flat rate of one shilling was charged regardless of message length, unlike later pricing schemes, but many people paid this just to see the strange equipment I would unlike later pricing schemes It is very early days and they wouldn't have known their pricing or what the real price should be for profitability, so no real comparison could be made with future price plans.
  • Done. Obviously, that wouldn't have been a consideration for Cooke, but I don't see anything wrong with making the comparison for the reader. Kieve certainly notes this explicitly. Anyway, I don't think it's essential to keep it, the point is implied in any case. SpinningSpark 14:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 13:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Telegraph companies

• Prussia. This should be linked.
  • Done. SpinningSpark 14:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 13:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• that is It is seemingly working as i.e. and it shouldn't as its not asking for another explanation. To make it work as that is and connect it to he proceeding clause take out the comma.
  • Done. SpinningSpark 14:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much better flow. Y scope_creep^Talk 13:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Between 1846 and 1868 Does it need a comma?
  • Done. SpinningSpark 14:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its ok. Y scope_creep^Talk 13:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Telegraph Company

• Electric Telegraph Company (ETC) In the lede you were calling it the the Electric. Should there be a common nomenclature?
  • This is a difficult one that I don't think I have a complete solution to, or at least, if I do, I haven't implemented it very well. I want to say somewhere that the names of the Electric and the Magnetic were counterposed to each other in that abbreviated way, and I guess the lead is actually demonstrating that comparison directly. I've generally used ETC in the bulk of the article to avoid frequent repetitions of the full name. I don't want to use Electric, partly because its possible to confuse with other companies who have Electric in their name when not talking in the context of the Magnetic/Electric duopoly, and partly because a major source, Kieve, uses ETC. Although even he occassionaly slides into the alternative term. Another issue is that I would like to be consistent and use initials for the Magnetic as well, but their change of name makes that difficult without being either confusing or inaccurate. Using the full name of the Electric throughout might be a solution, but they had a name change also in 1854, so there is no easy answer to this. SpinningSpark 21:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've left a statement in Discussion below. Y scope_creep^Talk

• It was formed without Wheatstone. Cooke and Wheatstone had had a serious falling out over who should take credit for the invention Link them together, something like It was formed without Wheatstone as he and Cooke had had a serious falling out over who should take credit for the invention.
  • Done. SpinningSpark 21:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 17:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• was reached with them both taking some credit was reached with both of them taking some credit It a much of a muchness. Eithers good.
  • Done. SpinningSpark 21:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 17:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I notice that some sentences are very short. I suspect that is possibly to give space for the reference number, e.g.The ETC bought out Wheatstone's patent interest in exchange for royalties.[32] They also acquired Davy's relay patent.[33] This is logically one sentence.
  • Done. When a passage is constructed from different references, it tends to lead to the information being placed in separate sentences, but that has not been done to "make space" for references, they can be placed in the middle of a sentence if necessary. SpinningSpark 12:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 14:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The wayleaves gave the ETC exclusive use It is muddled. Wayleaves is not an entity, it is a byelaw. I don't think it can be spoken about in the first person. I can't make sense of it.
  • You've confused me as well now. First of all, a wayleave is not a byelaw. It is a right granted to an entity to enter the property of another. In the modern era, wayleaves most often refer to rights granted in statute law to a utility company, but wayleaves can also be granted by private companies or individuals. Here we are talking about wayleaves granted by one private company (a railway company) to another private company (a telegraph company) as a private agreement. I'm also struggling to understand in what context you think this is first person. It certainly isn't grammatically. SpinningSpark 12:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you not say something like The railways gave exclusive use of the wayleaves to the ETC, shutting out competitors from the most economic way of building a telegraph network.
    • Done. SpinningSpark 19:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Y scope_creep^Talk 16:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Supply of news to newspapers and stock exchange information to the financial sector were profitable too as its a quantity?
  • What? SpinningSpark 22:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It think is too. A countable noun so it 'too as you are supply a quantity of something so it too. I looked up to and too as I using to all the time and was wondering what too meant.
      • Which "to" do you think should be "too"? There are two in the clause and neither seem appropriate to me. Neither does adding "too" to the end of the sentence. SpinningSpark 19:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • It minor. Yscope_creep^Talk 14:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A major user from the beginning was the insurer Lloyd's of London, and they had telegraph instruments installed directly in their London offices in 1852 as Don't know.
  • If you mean they were a major user because they had instruments installed, then no, that is not the intended meaning. SpinningSpark 13:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Makes sense. Y scope_creep^Talk 17:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• because prices were high due to high prices
  • Done. SpinningSpark 22:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 16:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Y scope_creep^Talk 17:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The ETC remained by far the largest telegraph company until nationalisation Is that in Britain or Europe?
  • The context of this article is telegraphy in the UK so I don't think there is a need to explicitly state that. But to answer your question, Siemens may have been a bigger company, but I have no figures to hand on that so not sure. However, that is not a valid comparison for two reasons. Firstly, by the time of UK nationalisation, Siemens was no longer just a telegraph company. They made many other things and telegraphy may even not have been the majority of their business. Secondly, the continental companies, including Siemens, were not companies running there own telegraph service as the British companies did. They were suppliers of equipment and services to state-run telegraph services. SpinningSpark 22:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article context sets it. Y scope_creep^Talk 17:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• cable ship Should be linked.
  • Done. SpinningSpark 22:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 16:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This company was merged back with the ETC in 1854 merged back into the ETC in 1854
  • Done. SpinningSpark 13:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 16:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Other subsidiaries created which Subsidiary is not mentioned in previous sentenced. Something Other subsidiary companies that were created laid
  • Done. SpinningSpark 13:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y 80.229.232.253 (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetic Telegraph Company

• Change in nomenclature from abbreviation to magnetic in the section.
  • What action are you requesting? We probably should have a discussion on nomenclature in the general section below as multiple companies are involved here. SpinningSpark 13:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the thing mentioned about chopping and changing from UKTC to magnetic and so on. So far there is three companies that have a long name and some have a acronym. Discuss below. scope_creep^Talk 16:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Discussed below so this can be closed. Y scope_creep^Talk 23:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• initially to initially possibly.
  • The intended meaning of the sentence is not to make the first connection (although that was the intention of the company), but rather that this was the first task of the company. SpinningSpark 13:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thats fine. Y scope_creep^Talk 16:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The first attempt at this failed, as did Comma is not needed. It is a conjunction describing several failures, not a failure and something else.
  • Done. SpinningSpark 13:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reads much better. Y scope_creep^Talk 16:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Magnetic finally succeeded in 1853, allowing Ireland telegraphic connection for the first time to Britain and to mainland Europe Slightly muddled. Possibly In 1853 the Magnetic finally succeeded in connecting Ireland to Britain and mainland Europe with a telegraphic connection.
  • I've rewritten this somewhat, but I still feel we should lead with the Magnetic success rather than the date as this follows on from the previous sentence. SpinningSpark 13:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems reasonable. Y scope_creep^Talk 16:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Magnetic was the largest competitor to the ETC, the two of them forming a virtual duopoly The Magnetic was the largest competitor to the ETC with the two of them forming a virtual duopoly
  • Done. SpinningSpark 13:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That cool.Y scope_creep^Talk 16:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That was the British Electric Telegraph Company (BETC, later to change its name to the British Telegraph Company to avoid confusion with the ETC[51]) founded in 1849 I would split this as the, founded in 1849 is hanging off the end of the sentence. It is confusing on several reads. Something like That was the British Electric Telegraph Company (BETC) that was founded in 1849. It had to later change its name to the British Telegraph Company to avoid confusion with the ETC[51]..
  • Done. SpinningSpark 21:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y Better flow. scope_creep^Talk 14:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• They wrongly believed that Parliament would force the railway companies to allow them to have lines Doesn't make sense at the end. access to lines The wayleave context is complex as its a right to access.
  • Changed to "erect lines". SpinningSpark 13:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • More accurate. Y scope_creep^Talk 16:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The whole ETC, BETC nomenclature is very confusing. From The to reference 57 is muddled. I can't understand the section at all. I'll stop here, for fresh reading tommorrow. It not clear at all. It makes more sense now. scope_creep^Talk 12:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

London District Telegraph Company

• Strand. Links to Strand, London
  • Done. SpinningSpark 14:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 16:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Charing Cross. Link to Charing Cross
  • Done. SpinningSpark 14:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 16:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The area of the District was to be within four miles of Why was? The area of the District only encompassed an area less than four miles from Charing Cross, with a plan to later expand it to twenty miles.
  • I've changed it to "was limited to..." This was a statutory limitation, not simply the plans of the company. They could apply to increase this to 20 miles, but the decision to allow it was not theirs. SpinningSpark 14:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y Excellent. Makes sense. scope_creep^Talk 16:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rooftop telegraphs Is that not roof top cabling?
  • Technically, cabling is the wrong term. In this era bare wires were used, not cables. SpinningSpark 14:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • May be singular possibly. Were the called that? Might be worth calling it rooftop conducting wire for telegraph possibly.
      • Changed to "Rooftop wires". SpinningSpark 17:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Links to the mention of the wires in the lede. Y scope_creep^Talk 16:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The cheap prices of the District stimulated a much more casual use of the telegraph. In 1862 the company transmitted a quarter of a million messages. These should be joined.
  • Done. SpinningSpark 14:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 16:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom Telegraph Company

• UKTC You have created the acronym without telling the reader.
  • Done. SpinningSpark 22:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It minor by consistent. Yscope_creep^Talk

• The UKTC, founded by Thomas Allan The UKTC that was founded
  • Fine as it is, and that construction is clunky and ungrammatical. SpinningSpark 22:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. Yscope_creep^Talk 16:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• flat rate . Link to flat rate
  • Done. SpinningSpark 22:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yscope_creep^Talk 16:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Act in 1862 Is it not possible to find the act. They are all online now or to give it a name?
  • Probably could be found but I've played this game before and it's not so easy. I don't believe the statutes are online prior to 1988 (if you know different, let me know where). There are tables and indices on gbooks, but they are hard to interpret and often omit the private bills. I don't think it's tremendously beneficial to have it; there were many such Acts concerning telegraph companies and if we have one, why not have them all? These are primary sources and for Wikipedia we need the secondary sources to interpret their significance, which we already have. SpinningSpark 12:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That acts are all coming onto Wikipedia, which I'm surprised at as there is a mountain of them. This is the holding list:
      List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 1860–1879. Eventually they will be linked in although I notice some of them are redirects at the moment. It is minor really and could be a bit of a time waster. You could spend donkeys on it, or put a redirect in . Your gig. scope_creep^Talk 16:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Forget this. Yscope_creep^Talk 12:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Private Telegraph Company

Thats ok scope_creep^Talk 15:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Profitability

• The District, with low prices and a troublesome rooftop system to maintain showed a loss every year of its existence except 1865 Should be The District, with low prices and a troublesome rooftop system to maintain suffered a loss every year of its existence except 1865
  • Done. SpinningSpark 14:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yscope_creep^Talk 17:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The UKTC had come late to the party May be better as as a late competitor
  • This is somewhere I fundamentally disagree with the practice of many Wikipedia copyeditors. Flattening all colourful phrases into boring blandness does not make for the "brilliant prose" that FA talks about. It is not POV, it is not unclear, and it is not against guidelines. Flat language does not make the article memorable or interesting. I daresay someone will remove it eventually (they always do), but I'm not going to do it. SpinningSpark 14:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have a thing about florid or colourful language and I never meant it in that context as this is my first review, but the correct word is competition. That's the only thing companies do between themselves unless one of them is a charity (NGO). I agree with fact about flattening it into boring language, tell me about it. Pisses me off severely sometimes but its your call. scope_creep^Talk 17:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Makes sense to the user in a roundabout way. Yscope_creep^Talk 12:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• agreeing a common price structure, thus destroying their original business model agreeing a common price structure that eventually destroyed their original business model
  • No, their original business model was entirely and immediately dumped by this agreement. It might have taken some time for the consequences to work through, but the change was immediate. SpinningSpark 14:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then it should be agreeing a common price structure that immediately destroyed their original business model
      • Thus means consequently so that is fine. Y scope_creep^Talk 22:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In 1851 ETC charged In 1851 the ETC
  • Done. SpinningSpark 14:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yscope_creep^Talk 17:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Link gross to Gross income
  • Done. SpinningSpark 14:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yscope_creep^Talk 17:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 1s You refer to one shilling rate above. Should that not convert all the writing as opposed to numerics, e.g. as 1 shilling instead of 1s. 1/6d Might be worth changing it to one and a half shillings.
  • I think that at the point any amount other than whole shillings is introduced it is necessary to start using Lsd nomenclature. It can be introduced earlier if you like, but it can't be omitted. I don't like the idea of using some ahistorical bastardised system of our own devising with decimal shillings. Alternatively, we could state all amounts in words (one shilling and sixpence). SpinningSpark 14:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I agree with that but there must be a better way of presenting it to the user, unless its linked or converted to a common value, e.g. shilling. See below.
      • I'll replace the abbreviated annotation which is mostly responsible for confusing people. SpinningSpark 17:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Y scope_creep^Talk 22:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 1/6d Is there a conversion for this. It is one and a half shillings.
  • Is that not the same point as above? SpinningSpark 14:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Different standard of presentation across different parts of the article dependent on the source of information. If it was ship article convert template to equalise it all across the article but I don't know if such a thing exists for old money. I'll post a help question to try and make it easier for the reader.
      • No, that was just never done. As I said above, it's ahistorical. Americans never understood this system when it was current. Fat chance of getting them to understand it now however easy you try to make it. SpinningSpark 17:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have left a help request. Somebody else must have faced a similar problem.
          • User:John of Reading has come back with {{Pounds, shillings, and pence}} template. It converts the pre-1971 subunits of Pound Sterling to its modern decimal subunits. What's your thoughts? The template has never been used, potentially indicating its not well liked. It can convert based on a flag to pence and that would be my ideal situation. That would rationalise the whole article down to modern pence as a standard value, making the value understandable by the majority of the UK population.
            • Personally, I think conversions of all sorts in any article are clutter that gets in the way of the flow of the text. But I can see that this is likely to keep coming up so I'll give way on it. I don't think that templates are necessary, it is easy enough to convert manually, and too many templates clutter the edit window making editing more of a chore than it needs to be. SpinningSpark 22:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Y scope_creep^Talk 22:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News service

• In places where the office was in line of sight Remove in
  • Why? I think a preposition is needed when line of sight refers to the relation between two objects. Gbooks shows "is in line of sight" is a common construction. The results for "is line of sight" are infinitive constructions, words-as-words, or else have a preposition elsewhere in the sentence for at least the first two pages of results. SpinningSpark 16:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y Seems to be good grammar. scope_creep^Talk 23:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Submarine cables

• To connect the telegraph to anywhere outside of Britain submarine telegraph cables were needed To connect the telegraph to anywhere outside of Britain, submarine telegraph cables were needed
  • Done. SpinningSpark 18:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 19:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The solution came with gutta-percha, a natural latex from certain trees in the Far East The ideal material came with the discovery of a natural latex from the gutta-percha (Palaquium) tree in the Far East
  • Partially done. It would be incorrect to describe gutta-percha as ideal. It was just the best material available at the time, and there were still some situations when it was better to use something else. SpinningSpark 18:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much better. Y scope_creep^Talk 19:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Gutta-percha sets harder than rubber when exposed to the air, but will become plastic, and hence mouldable, in hot water. On cooling, gutta-percha hardens again Gutta-percha sets harder than rubber when exposed to the air but when soaked in hot water it become plastic and mouldable. On cooling it hardens again.
  • Done. SpinningSpark 18:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 19:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The material was brought to attention after William Montgomerie, the head of the medical department in Singapore, sent samples to the Royal Society in 1843 Reverse it as The material was bought to the attention of the Royal Society in 1843, when William Montgomerie, the head of the medical department in Singapore sent samples of Gutta-percha to them.
  • Done. SpinningSpark 09:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 12:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In the damp conditions of the tropics rubber deteriorated raidly Is this needed? Seemed to have went to the tropics?
  • I think so because it explains why Montgomerie was interested in it. I've combined it with the previous sentence which gives it better flow. SpinningSpark 09:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y In the damp conditions scope_creep^Talk 12:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In 1844–5 he tested, probably short lengths, of cable in Swansea Bay In 1844-1845 Wheatstone tested short lengths of cable in Swansea Bay. Was it short lengths? link Swansea Bay.
  • Done dates and link. It's unclear how long Wheatstone's samples were. It is the sources assessment that they were probably short, not mine. The logic is that if he had had long samples then he must have had a method of applying gutta-percha to long runs of cable. Since it is known that he could not do this, the conclusion is that they were probably short. SpinningSpark 09:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 12:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cable manufacturing companies

• The rival India Rubber, Gutta Percha and Telegraph Works Company was founded in 1864 as an offshoot of S. W. Silver and Co. of [Silvertown]] There seems to be new context. Their main competitor was the India Rubber, Gutta Percha and Telegraph Works Company that was founded in Silvertown, London in 1864 as an offshoot of the clothiers and outfitters S. W. Silver and Co..
  • You seem to be introducing new stuff there that is not from the sources. I'm not at all sure about "main competitor". The Gutta Percha Co was taken over by Telcon in the same year as India Rubber was formed, so if they were the main competitor, it was not for long. It seems to me that they had more problems from an internal split company in West Ham (later absorbed into Silver's company). If we are going to talk about Silver's activities, we need to add a source for that (won't be hard to find). The germane thing here is that they made waterproof clothing, the reason they were interested in these rubber materials. SpinningSpark 10:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yip, add another reference for them. The main standout for me is that it is left on the end of the sentence and is not linked. You must give the reader something to tell them what it is. Substituting waterproofing company or waterproof clothing company or something along those lines. And link Silvertown and add London.
      • Done. SpinningSpark 16:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Y I see an excellent description. scope_creep^Talk 21:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• These were not very successful, they were easily damaged and some attempts to lay cables failed because they would not sink Should be something in context like, Using only the insulation was not successful as they were easily damaged and some attempts to lay cables failed due to them not sinking
  • That seems like unnecessary repetition to me. The context has already been established. SpinningSpark 11:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yip. The first i.e. not successful and easily damaged. Have you informed the reader why they were damaged. I couldn't see it, unless updated.
      • There are many reasons cables can be damaged, not least, by the cable ship's own cable handling gear. I don't think we need to go into that here, there are plenty of other articles for those details. It's enough to say unprotected cables are vulnerable. SpinningSpark 16:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's fine. Yscope_creep^Talk 17:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The construction found to work well was to twist the cable cores together, bind with tarred hemp, wind tarred cord around the whole group of cores, and then protect the assembled cores with iron wires twisted around them The method of construction that was found to work well...
  • Why is that better? It is less succinct, adding more words without adding additional information. SpinningSpark 11:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A construction is final event so you always the method of construction. Your performing an action which is a method.
      • There is no sense of construction which means event. I think you probably mean process which is wikt:construction sense #1. But it can also mean a "thing that has been constructed" (sense #2). Even more relevant in this case is sense #6, "the manner in which something is built". SpinningSpark 22:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have a series of actions, twists, binding, tarring and assembling and you don't think they are methods. I think it will be changed by somebody else at some point. It is not bad. Yscope_creep^Talk 17:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• link Woolwich
  • Done. SpinningSpark 11:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 14:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Exports were a large part of the business, well over £2 million in 1873, 1% of total British manufactured exports Could be Exports were a large part of the business totalling well over £2 million in 1873 and 1% of total British manufactured exports.
  • Done. SpinningSpark 11:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 14:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean cable companies

• The first ocean cable anywhere in the world Remove the anywhere. Anywhere is the world
  • Done. SpinningSpark 17:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 21:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• After several failed attempts, the Brett's company, the Submarine Telegraph Company (STC), succeeded in connecting to France in 1851 After several failed attempts, the Brett's company known as the Submarine Telegraph Company (STC) finally succeeded in connecting to France in 1851
  • We don't need to say "known as". That is what the company was called. The word "finally" adds nothing, and this was only the following year, so not a long struggle over many years like the Atlantic cable. SpinningSpark 17:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have the company, the company, two the's. It gives a space for better flow.
      • This is very minor. Close it. Yscope_creep^Talk 14:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• From about 1857 the Magnetic had an agreement with them that all their submarine cables were to be used only with the landlines of the Magnetic were only to be connected.
  • "Connected" is wrong. In all probability, direct connections between stations in England and France didn't happen much, if at all. The cable company employed operators to retransmit the messages, not just because of the distance involved, but because the codes used in the two countries were different. Morse did not become the international standard until 1865, and neither country was using it in this period (1850s). Automatic code converters were beyond the capabilities of the technology available. SpinningSpark 17:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Newall was prone to fall out with his customers and was often involved in litigation. The company slowly moved away from the telegraph cable business Should be joined.
  • Done. (Spinningspark)
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 21:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• UKTC laid a cable... extended it on to Russia.
  • Done. SpinningSpark 17:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 21:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ...monetary guarantees providing
  • That would end up with a repetition, "...provision of...monetary guarantees" is already in the article. SpinningSpark 17:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your right. Y scope_creep^Talk 21:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• the Red Sea to India cable in 1859 laid by the Red Sea & India Company It is worth mentioning why it was failure. Is that the Indian Mutiny?

I've changed the requested quote template above, I'm assuming that was a typo. No, the failure had nothing to do with the Indian Mutiny, but the fact that the urgent request for help from India had taken forty days to arrive in London had everything to do with the British Government prematurely placing a contract for the Red Sea cable before properly analysing the reasons for failure of the Atlantic cable. The Red Sea cable failed in multiple places for multiple technical reasons, all boiling down to not yet having a full understanding of what was needed for really long, deep ocean cables. A little more might be said here, but only in general terms, it's a story in itself and could go way off topic for this article. SpinningSpark 17:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's done. Much clearer. Y scope_creep^Talk 14:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• was achieved} was finally achieved?
  • Done. SpinningSpark 18:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Y scope_creep^Talk 21:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Indian government link? Minor
  • Done. SpinningSpark 18:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 21:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• shorter distance in ocean muddled.
  • Do you have a suggestion? SpinningSpark 18:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kind of makes sense when you read the paragraph and that is how it is structured. Y
  • The 25 nautical miles of the English Channel cable was a long cable. Likewise the Irish Sea cable. This was a cable on a whole different scale, orders of magnitude longer. We need something to differentiate it. I know really is an overused word often unnecessarily inserted (but surprisingly not in
    WP:WTW) but in this case we need something more than the bare adjective. SpinningSpark 22:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I think you need clarify what was considered a long cable possibly linked in section how difficult it was, possibly. If it order of magnitude the reader needs to know.
      • Well here's the issue, there is no official definition of "really long" like there is for
        WP:SYNTH. I don't think it's truly needed, but I've added "...many times longer than any other submarine cable at that time" which I hope addresses your concern. SpinningSpark 13:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • That's fine. Y scope_creep^Talk 14:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• achieved in 1866 achieved by 1866 indicating work was done in the interim.
  • Done. SpinningSpark 16:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 21:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• India that went most of the distance that covered most of the distance
  • Done. SpinningSpark 16:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 21:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• the political and other risks of an overland route the political and other risks associated with an overland route.
  • Done. SpinningSpark 16:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 21:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Falmouth link.
  • Done. SpinningSpark 16:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 21:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Falmouth was originally intended as the landing site in England, but in the event, the tiny village of Porthcurno became the largest submarine cable station in the world after numerous other cables were landed there muddled.
  • I've looked up in the event which in that sense means a future event. Now make sense where is didn't yesterday. Y scope_creep^Talk 15:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• link Porthcurno
  • Is already linked. SpinningSpark 16:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 21:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Eastern and Associated Cable Company Possible link or mention of Cable & Wireless plc that it eventually became
  • Eastern Telegraph Company is already linked, and is currently a redirect to Cable & Wireless plc, also already linked. Eastern Telegraph Company may have its own article one day, but Eastern and Associated Cable Company is just a name change of the Eastern Telegraph Company and is never going to have a separate page. There is no point in annoying the reader with a third link that goes to exactly the same article that potentially they have already followed twice. SpinningSpark 17:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 21:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• best compete worldwide Remove best.
  • No, they were already competing worldwide. They wanted to compete better. Amusingly,
    WP:PEACOCK uses "best" in exactly this adverbial sense, showing that there are non-peacocky uses for the word. SpinningSpark 17:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 21:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• carried multiple telephone channels by frequency division multiplexing by using the technique of frequency division multiplexing
  • This is more words that add nothing to meaning. SpinningSpark 17:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • They carried it using electricity. It doesn't make sense in this manner. FDM is a technique and so says so of the first of FDM article. Please change it.
      • I'm not denying it is a technique, but we still don't need all those words. I'd settle for "using frequency division multiplexing". SpinningSpark 14:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's fine it make sense where before it didn't. Y scope_creep^Talk 14:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance and technical problems

• This solution is not open to submarine cables and the very long distances maximise the problem Seem to be unlinked concept. Muddled possibly. Seems to be first person.
  • The two things are linked in that it is this combination (need for insulation and long distance) that make the problem severe for submarine cables. This is the second time you have used "first person" in a sense I don't understand. SpinningSpark 18:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your using This and is not rather than The solution was not meaning in first person. I can't understand the sentence at the moment. I'll read it tomorrow. scope_creep^Talk 22:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have made two changes in your example text, neither of which is a change of person. Both constructions are third person. A first person construction would be "my solution is..." or "our solution was..." The first change is replacing the determiner this with the definite article the. Determiners fill the same grammatical place as articles and are perfectly acceptable to use in formal writing. In this case, the meaning of the determiner is wikt:this#Determiner sense #2. That is, indicating the solution just mentioned. Using an article is less clear to the reader what solution is being discussed. The other change is a change of tense, replacing the present tense is with the past tense was. The present tense is not incorrect, the solution can no more be done now than it could then. Further, the preceding sentences are also in present tense so a change in this sentence would look odd and be confusing. You may possibly have been referring to active voice and passive voice, but both constructions are active voice and it would be awkward to recast in the passive voice. SpinningSpark 15:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • It makes a kind of sense but I find even now that it is step change from the previous sentence when you read it. It doesn't chime but the detail is definitely there. Y scope_creep^Talk 17:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ..with heat flow after the fiasco with first the transatlantic cable fiasco is introduced. with first??? Can't make sense of it.
  • That's a typo (now fixed), should be "...with the first...". The fiasco is described earlier in the section when Whitehouse destroyed the hugely expensive cable with a junk theory. SpinningSpark 18:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Makes much better sense. Y scope_creep^Talk 22:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• transmission lines which showed which described.
  • Done. SpinningSpark 18:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 22:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• but he was a maverick outsider as he was a
  • That doesn't work. He didn't propose it to the Post Office because he was a maverick outsider. SpinningSpark 18:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • True. Y scope_creep^Talk 22:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• added loading coils to a telephone line for the first time in 1900 Possibly more explanation? Is that inductors that is spoken about.
  • The sentence already says that Campbell implemented the idea [of adding inductance] by adding loading coils. I don't think we need any further expansion when the loading coil article is available for readers who are interested. SpinningSpark 18:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The is a link to the inductor in loading coils. Y scope_creep^Talk 22:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Employment of women

• early on No date or decade perhaps
  • I don't have a firm (or even approximate) date that can be sourced as a general statement. The article already says the ETC started in 1855. Another source says the Magnetic was one of the first. Since the Magnetic was founded in 1850, that puts it in a five year window. I can't say exactly when one company doing it became many companies doing it, but competition usually ensures good ideas spread rapidly. I suppose we could say "...early on in the companies period." That is more on-point than an exact date. SpinningSpark 17:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yip.
      • Please add this in.
        • Done SpinningSpark 17:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Y scope_creep^Talk 17:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Similar with the Magnetic
  • Is that the same point? SpinningSpark 17:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yip I'd say so. Close this. Y scope_creep^Talk 19:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 10s and 30s. Not change to 10shillings
  • Done. I've now gone through the whole and added conversions as well. SpinningSpark 17:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 19:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• when it started up began operating
  • Done. SpinningSpark 17:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 19:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• New recruits were unpaid until they completed training (typically six weeks) at the end of which they were expected to achieve a minimum transmission speed (10 wpm at the Magnetic[136] and 8 wpm at the ETC) I think this is too long. recruits were unpaid until they completed training that typically lasted six weeks. At the end of the training the recruits were expected to achieve a minimum transmission speed, defined as 10 wpm at the Magnetic[136] and 8 wpm at the ETC.
  • Done. SpinningSpark 19:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really decent. Y scope_creep^Talk 19:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 3d a day Nobody know what it is and doesn't compare on the same scale. On the first scale your a week. On this sentence per day. And you have also changed from shillings to d's meaning pennies. Working seven days a week, it would 1.75 shillings per week.
  • There is now a conversion to p on all currency figures. We can't convert daily pay to weekly pay for WP:SYNTH reasons. We don't know that they both had the same working week, or the same working hours. They probably didn't, with a telegraphist having significantly better terms than a seamstress. It is unlikely that either worked a seven-day week. SpinningSpark 07:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You cant compare on two scales. I'll do a bit of research and maybe get a ref. scope_creep^Talk 19:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • It has been cleaned and much much clearer. Y scope_creep^Talk 19:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Holding down pay and the fact that women were not organised into unions were the primary reasons the companies preferred to employ them Possibly The fact that women were not organised into unions combined with their smaller pay [requirements] were the primary reasons the companies preferred to employ them
  • I've restructured the sentence to make the companies the subject of the sentence. SpinningSpark 09:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is much better flow and assuming it still makes sense. scope_creep^Talk 19:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Y scope_creep^Talk 04:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Public take up

• The ability of the telegraph was first brought to the attention of a wider public on 6 August 1844 when the birth of Alfred Ernest Albert to Queen Victoria was reported in The Times only 40 minutes after it was announced. The ability of the telegraph to deliver news to a wide audience was first brought to the attention of the public on 6 August 1844 when the birth of Alfred Ernest Albert to Queen Victoria was reported in The Times only 40 minutes after it was announced
  • I would say that it was the speed of delivering news that caught people's eye, not the ability to deliver news per se. Besides which, the topic of this passage is the public attention to the telegraph generally, not just its news capability. Public notice was caused by a variety of other reasons as well. SpinningSpark 13:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's seems reasonable. Y scope_creep^Talk 04:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• London Stock Exchange link if not linked.
  • Done. SpinningSpark 13:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 04:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This was an unprecedented ability in international communications This ability was unprecedented...
  • Done SpinningSpark 13:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y

• Also in 1851 In the same year. Minor
  • Done SpinningSpark 13:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yscope_creep^Talk

• competition under competition by the..
  • Done SpinningSpark 13:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 04:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• later price control under nationalisation later price controls after nationalisation' nationalisation should be linked about somewhere. Multiple price controls.
  • Done. I've wikilinked it twice, once on first occurrence, and a second time in the section actually discussing nationalisation since there is a large amount of intervening text and that's where the reader is most likely to want to look it up. SpinningSpark 13:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That fine. They know what it is but not what it involved. Yscope_creep^Talk 04:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalisation

• intensive usage of lines and the economic case for building new lines and provide the economic
  • Done. SpinningSpark 14:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 04:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This could only come about, according to Allan According to Allan this could only happen if
  • Done. SpinningSpark 14:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yscope_creep^Talk 05:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This could only come about, according to Allan, if the Post Office ran the network as a unified whole, comparing his proposal to the effect of the introduction of the Penny Post. Big sentence
  • Broken up. SpinningSpark 14:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 04:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A more surprising, and more influential, advocate was John Ricardo, free trade campaigning Member of Parliament, railway entrepreneur, banker, and cofounder of the ETC Bit of a comma overkill. A surprising and influential advocate was the
  Member of Parliament John Ricardo
  who co-founded the ETC. Ricardo was a free trade campaigner as well as a railway entrepreneur and banker. I know you should avoid two links together, but some articles need to link to it.
  • I've restructured it along those lines, but not exactly as you wrote. SpinningSpark 15:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much better with a wee bit of introduction. I like those introductions as they smooth the article out and makes it easier to read. Y scope_creep^Talk 04:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• government tool tool? utility maybe.
  • But it isn't (yet) a government utility, it's a private utility. Besides which, importance as a utility is not the same as importance for diplomacy, military, and political government activities. SpinningSpark 15:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine. Y scope_creep^Talk 04:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Board of Trade link
  • Done SpinningSpark 15:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 04:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Another Act. Here is the list of
  List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 1860–1879
  For this block they are in there, and article being created now.
  • It's being created? Where? I can't find it. SpinningSpark 15:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant like over 6 months time span possibly, the WP equivalent of being created now. I will be linked later I suppose. Y scope_creep^Talk 04:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not all Acts are notable. As this is not my department, I am guided by what articles legal editors have created. SpinningSpark 11:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it will be put in eventually as it is notable, but it will be a good while. In the meantime it is out of scope.

Y 19:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Frank Ives Scudamore the post office reformer Frank Ives Scudamore
  • Done SpinningSpark 15:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yscope_creep^Talk 04:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Telegraph Act 1868

• nationalise, link it
  • nationalisation. Verb forms are not normally expected to be articles. SpinningSpark 16:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Yip. Y scope_creep^Talk 05:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• much parliamentary time significant parliamentary time
  • Done SpinningSpark 16:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yscope_creep^Talk 05:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• had the wayleave. had access to the wayleaves tense changes mid sentence
  • A wayleave is a right that gives one access to something, having access to a right to access is repetition. SpinningSpark 16:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no change of tense; "...did....have..." is still past tense. To be present tense we would write "...does...have...".
    • It seems that way. Yscope_creep^Talk 14:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SpinningSpark 11:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The resulting opposition from the telegraph companies had been expected The resulting opposition from the telegraph companies had been expected by the government
  • Done SpinningSpark 16:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yscope_creep^Talk 05:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In June, the companies started to negotiate In June, the companies started to negotiate with the government
  • Not really necessary, there is no one else to negotiate with. SpinningSpark 16:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. I must admit I'm not keen on it. People sometimes only read parts of an article and when you provide as much means and information in the sentence they don't need read whole sections to get a context. Y scope_creep^Talk 05:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The preceding sentence and the following sentence make it clear that the discussion was with the government. Even within the sentence, who else could impose a settlement on them? It would be a spectacular misreading of that para to come to any other conclusion. SpinningSpark 11:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, that kind of paragraph context you could call it.Y scope_creep^Talk 14:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• net link this to Net income
  • Done SpinningSpark 16:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yscope_creep^Talk

• Comment Again the problem of acronyms. It mentioned STC's cables Resolved. scope_creep^Talk 10:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For completeness. Y scope_creep^Talk 05:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The solution arrived at, in a great hurry and afterwards admitted to be not ideal, was to purchase Reuter's cables and lease them back to the STC, together with other continental cables acquired by the Post Office. A bit muddled. In a great hurry the government arrived at a what they considered an imperfect solution and that was purchase Reuter's cables and lease them back to the STC, together with other continental cables acquired by the Post Office
  • Sentence split. SpinningSpark 16:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much better flow. Y scope_creep^Talk 05:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

Coolio. scope_creep^Talk 13:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post Office Telegraphs

• ETC building Expand the ETC here. Minor. I think getting rid of one would benefit the article.
  • Why that one in particular? SpinningSpark 16:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It reminds people in a big article what it is. It is minor.
      • It minor. Y for completeness. scope_creep^Talk 11:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• On the other hand, the Post Office overall remained profitable throughout Muddled. However, the Post Fffice remained profitable throughout this period
  • added "...the period" but I'm not sure of the reason for the other changes. SpinningSpark 16:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Y scope_creep^Talk 11:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 6d rate Need rationalised.
  • Now moot I think. SpinningSpark 16:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Its done. Y for completeness. scope_creep^Talk 11:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That's a solid chapter.

Unionisation

• There is no link for the Telegraphers' Association but there is an American association.
  • It could be redlinked, but I'm not seeing enough material (virtually none) to justify a standalone article and there is no target for a redirect. I'm guessing it was rapidly merged, most likely into the Amalgamated Society of Telegraph and Telephone Construction Men which also doesn't have an article. That union merged into the Electrical Trades Union (United Kingdom) and then the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union and then the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union and then Amicus (trade union) and finally Unite the Union after merging with the T&G. A redirect to the current incarnation or any of the intermediates would baffle the reader; only the earliest one would make sense and that is unverified information in any case. SpinningSpark 18:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • An indicator for an article. scope_creep^Talk 19:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only potentially notable subjects should be redlinked because only potentially notable subjects should have articles created. There is virtually no information on this organisation from which an article could be written. SpinningSpark 11:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Excellent. Y scope_creep^Talk 11:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• at Manchester in Manchester
  • Done SpinningSpark 18:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 11:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Their pay was still less than the pay in cable and maintenance companies; more Their pay was still less than the pay in cable and maintenance companies resulting in more
  • Done SpinningSpark 18:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 11:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In 1868 Charles Monk got In 1868 Charles Monk introduced ... that became law. In the next sentence I see. In 1868 Charles Monk introduced a private member's bill in parliament that would extend the vote to Post Office workers and other civil servants. Link to voting.
  • A lot of additional text with no additional information. "Voting" is an
    everyday word understood by most readers in context. SpinningSpark 18:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Please take a look at the voting article. That is the UK process. Sure it is better than got through parliament. You have already got the It became in law in the second sentence. So it is In 1868 Charles Monk introduced a private member's bill through parliament which is the genuine parliamentary nomenclature.
      • I've made the change from got → introduced, but sorry, voting is not a sensible thing to link. Everybody knows what it is, it has no special relation to this article, and the voting article is not even specific to the UK. Did you read OVERLINK? In particular the bit about 2/3 of links on Wikipedia not even clicked once? SpinningSpark 22:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've not read OVERLINK, somebody spoke to me about years ago and by now it seems to be common sense. I wouldn't link it in similar situation. I think it is a pity though. Some common article are often exceedingly different to what you think they're going to be. That's fine. Yscope_creep^Talk 19:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exchange Telegraph Company

Is this not in the wrong location?

I don't think so. First of all, Extel was not a general telegraph company offering a telegraph service to the public, rather, it was a news service that happened to use telegraph technology. Secondly, it wasn't doing much during the companies period, only becoming important in the nationalisation period (probably suppressed by the companies news monopoly). And thirdly, this is where the Kieve source puts it, who similarly devotes a section of the book to the companies and a section to the Post Office era. After all, British Telecom became a telegraph company when it was privatised, but it wouldn't be sensible to describe it under the earlier section. SpinningSpark 08:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Y scope_creep^Talk 12:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• very minor player very minor competitor
  • Who are we saying they are a minor competitor with? That is out of context with this passage. SpinningSpark 11:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your already saying it. Player means your playing against somebody so it is a competitor. It must be an industry if it is a player. scope_creep^Talk 12:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Second comment. It is minor really. Y scope_creep^Talk 12:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Competition from the telephone

• You a kind of introduction to William Preece, Post Office Chief Electrician (chief engineer) Does it need it or it provided by the references?
  • Preece was an important figure in the Post Office and I think we should say who he was. Looking at the article, He is mentioned surprisingly little. He had a long running feud with Heaviside (who considered him a technical incompetent – and I kind of agree with Heaviside). His refusal to listen to Heaviside's ideas on loading seriously delayed development of long lines in telephony and gave the Americans the lead. Perhaps we should mention Preece was behind the Post Office rejection in the passage on loading. SpinningSpark 11:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Makes sense. Y scope_creep^Talk 12:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There then followed the founding of a string of private telephone companies; the Telephone Company had the rights to Alexander Graham Bell's patent and the Edison Telephone Company had the rival patents of Thomas Edison, the two later merging as the United Telephone Company (UTC) Split this giant sentence. You could start with There then followed the founding of a string of private telephone companies.
  • I've split off the last part as a separate sentence. The semicolon is used to indicate a run-on sentence of two independent, but related, clauses. In this case it indicates that the companies mentioned in the second sentence are part of the "string" mentioned in the first. They still should be read in two separate parts, so I think that is ok. SpinningSpark 12:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is better. Y scope_creep^Talk 16:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• serious damage could be done to the telegraph business serious damage to the telegraph business would have occurred Taken out present tense and reordered.
  • This is a
    future-in-the-past verb form, for which we do not have a tense in English, but still legitimate and perfectly clear in my view. It is not the same as a grammatically proscribed change of tense. SpinningSpark 14:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • If you say so. Y scope_creep^Talk 16:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• monopoly of telephones on?
  • Doesn't sound right to me, on works better with abstract ideas like "monopoly on suffering", or "monopoly on violence". SpinningSpark 17:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think your right. It sounds odd. Yscope_creep^Talk 16:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• the blind Henry Fawcett I would take out blind, particularly when he a polymath.
  • Done SpinningSpark 17:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yscope_creep^Talk 16:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Lancashire & Cheshire No mentioned of the Lancashire & Cheshire anywhere.
  • No reason why there needs to be. This is the story of telegraphy, not of telephony. We only need to talk about the telephone companies as significant competition to the telegraph, the suppression of telephone companies by the Post Office to support telegraphy, and their final acceptance of telephony in favour of telegraphy once they had control of it. SpinningSpark 17:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it is just bit rough just to plump them down without some explanation, particularly when National and Lancashire & Cheshire isn't linked, just out the blue. Also National Telephone Company was created in 1881. So it should be into the instead of as the
      • No sorry, you can't cite dates from another Wikipedia article, especially as it is unsourced. Kieve presents it as three companies merging into a completely new company. Sure, The National name is carried through to the new company, but we need to go with the sources here. This book presents it in exactly the same way, with the same date, and with equally little information on the L&C. What exactly is it you want to say about this company, do you have a source for it, and what relevance is it to telegraphy. SpinningSpark 17:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is a mismatch between the articles and is out of scope. According to ^[1] it is called the Lancashire and Cheshire Telephone Exchange Company. The National is the National Telephone Company Ltd. Is it possible give them their full names. That will give the reader a nod that they are telephone companies. scope_creep^Talk 19:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Railway block signalling

• Link Block instruments to Absolute block signalling section
  • Done. SpinningSpark 17:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • *** Y scope_creep^Talk 15:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News service

• Prior to World War I, the telegraph rates charged to news services was much discussed By who?
  • The answer, of course, is politicians and newspapermen (and no doubt angry letters from members of the public). Changed to "...became a political issue." SpinningSpark 18:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's better. Y scope_creep^Talk 15:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 1s, 2d again. I've not looked at your comment above but it might putting a small glossary in. I think this has been fixed. Already done.
• 60/80 could this be 60 to 80
  • Not really, it's following the convention of in/out of office hours established earlier in the paragraph. SpinningSpark 17:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is pretty minor but when most people now look at it, it looks like 60 divided by 80 which since it is a range and it is not automatically obvious that it is a range. Y scope_creep^Talk 15:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 3d Also done.
  • Y. For completeness. scope_creep^Talk 15:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the London press Some London newspaper proprietors
  • Done SpinningSpark 21:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yscope_creep^Talk 15:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Harold Harmsworth (Lord Rothermere) After you become a peer, you start using the name and your old name is no longer used. He was created a baronet in 1910 and from that point on he was referred to Lord Rothermere and it is reflected in his own article.
  • Done SpinningSpark 21:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite surprised at find that out. I have a couple of article I need to look at. Yscope_creep^Talk 15:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • To my mind, the justification for it is
        WP:HONORIFICS suggests that we should not be doing it. SpinningSpark 16:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
        ]

• 1/3d Should be done already. scope_creep^Talk 05:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• 3d threepence which can be linked to Threepence (British coin) Should be done already. scope_creep^Talk 05:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Y for completeness. scope_creep^Talk 15:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Military

Fine.scope_creep^Talk 23:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorology

• got telegraph connections were connected to the telegraph
  • Do you have a problem with the word got? That's the second time something similar has come up. SpinningSpark 14:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No its minor. Y scope_creep^Talk 16:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency services

• call-points ??
  • break glass, which I have now retargeted to the specific section). SpinningSpark 08:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk 05:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automation

• First two sections. First 1915. Second section is 1901?
  • Reordered SpinningSpark 16:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent. Y scope_creep^Talk

• Because traffic. As traffic
  • Too easy to misread the meaning of as in that context. SpinningSpark 16:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the grammar rules in a formal written article it is not ideal. Informal, but for starting it with conjunction isn't particularly readable. How about converting Because traffic was declining in the 1920s, it was not worthwhile to automate many less busy lines into Traffic was declining in the 1920's because it was not worthwhile to automate many less busy lines. That puts the conjunction where it should be.
      • First of all, the word as in this context is just as much a conjuntion as because, see
        MLA Style Manual is widely used in scholarly writing. The MLA Style Center says ...it is not incorrect. They cite Oxford Dictionaries saying ...you’re not being ungrammatical. Merriam-Webster] says It's perfectly acceptable to begin a sentence with "And," Nunerous other style blogs say much the same thing eg [2][3][4]. Many writers of great stature have used this construction; I could quote Shakespeare at length if you like. And by the way, your suggestion has the clauses entirely the wrong way round. SpinningSpark 17:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • That is a bit of rant. I don't think there is anything I can say that will change your mind. It is an ugly word. Close this. Y scope_creep^Talk 17:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• about eighty. About eighty
  • Done SpinningSpark 16:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Y scope_creep^Talk

• The code used was the Baudot code, invented by Émile Baudot. The code used was the Baudot code that was invented by Émile Baudot It should really to be accurate as you have a code and an action. The Baudot code that invented by Émile Baudot was used to encode to message.
  • I think that construction just makes it clunky with unnecessary words. SpinningSpark 16:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently it is not enciphering code but it an action and you have mentioned code twice. I think it is worth it and makes much more sense as the code encodes, its the concomitant adjective. The Baudot code that invented by Émile Baudot was used to encode the message..
      • We don't need to tell the reader that a code is used to encode messages. That is almost a truism. Do we really need to hack this sentence around just to comply with the arbitrary non-rule of not using the same word twice in a sentence? And what "action" are you talking about? Neither use of code is a verb in this sentence. SpinningSpark 16:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is very far from truism. Most folk do not know what a code is. The get it from e.g. James Bond films, films about Enigma and from the most part hav no clue what it means. But is minor. Yscope_creep^Talk 17:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the issue is that readers may not understand code in this context, then a link to telegraph code can be inserted. But it won't be in this sentence because it is not the first mention. SpinningSpark 17:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline and recovery

• That's fine scope_creep^Talk 12:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World War II

• In 1941, in the City of London (the financial centre), messengers were stationed in the street to collect telegrams. Its a bit stilted. Possibly. In 1941, messengers were stationed in the street to collect telegrams in the City of London, the financial centre.
  • Restructured. SpinningSpark 16:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yip. Y scope_creep^Talk 18:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Italian navy then cut the five British telegraph cables from Gibraltar to Malta and two of the five going on from Malta to Alexandria. The Italian navy then cut the five British telegraph cables connecting Gibraltar to Malta and two of the five connecting Malta to Alexandria.
  • The purpose of using the phrase "going on" is to emphasise that these cables were part of an important link to the UK, not just a local problem at Malta. SpinningSpark 16:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thats important. Yscope_creep^Talk 18:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Telegrams

• That's fine. scope_creep^Talk 13:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Telex and private wires

• That's fine as well. scope_creep^Talk 18:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Hi @Spinningspark: There are three entries left and it is completed for prose. scope_creep^Talk 15:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is four entries. Take a look and see what you think. scope_creep^Talk 15:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please mark the items that still need attention with a graphic, or else break them out here. SpinningSpark 21:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This one is the only one remaining: From about 1857 the Magnetic had an agreement with them that all their submarine cables were to be used only with the landlines of the Magnetic Is it possible to put something like : From about 1857 the Magnetic had an agreement with them that all messages sent on all their submarine cables had to be retransmitted onto the landlines of the Magnetic It makes it much longer and gives the reader an idea of what happening without a three sentence explanation. scope_creep^Talk 18:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about that for a long time (partially forcibly because my computer crashed and its taken all day to get it back up) and finally decided I don't want to do that. If we say that incoming telegrams have to be forwarded to the Magnetic, that could leave readers with the mistaken impression that other companies could send outgoing international telegrams via the STC, or at least, leave it unclear. So we would have to separately make a statement about outgoing telegrams as well. I think that is a lot of complication for what is really a very simple situation – STC agreed to work only with the Magnetic in the UK. SpinningSpark 16:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. scope_creep^Talk 17:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Spinningspark: I found the full names for the Lancashire and Cheshire. I don't know what you want to do with it. scope_creep^Talk 10:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that already done? SpinningSpark 16:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is much better. Prose is 99% better than it was so that is it done. scope_creep^Talk 17:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS

• The lead section is pretty decent. scope_creep^Talk 17:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Layout. Lede. You have short description. You have no hat-notes. No tags. No foreign characters. Very clean lede. scope_creep^Talk 17:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Layout. Body. You have an intro section in early development. scope_creep^Talk 17:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Layout. Appendices. Per the references, seems to pass
  WP:CITEVAR
  , which means the article is going to be lower quality than other article.
• Layout. Bottom matter. Nothing here. scope_creep^Talk 17:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Words to watch. Regarding
  WP:PUFF nor WP:RACIST. Went through it with a tooth comb and no weasel words found. scope_creep^Talk 17:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Nothing to do with fiction. scope_creep^Talk 19:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No lists. scope_creep^Talk 19:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be section finished. I couldn't identify any particular caveats. Hi @Spinningspark: have I made any mistakes in this section. I think it passes. scope_creep^Talk 19:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Layout

I have done a frequency analysis on the references, I will post it in the next couple of days. They are not standard. scope_creep^Talk 23:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Spinningspark: I noticed your not using the sfn template nor named refs. What was the reason for this and does it really matter for this? I have checked the ref's, there is about 14-18 (I lost the document) duplicate references. Would not be better to use named refs in that instance? scope_creep^Talk 21:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See

this one. Unless there is something specific about this article in particular, these are not GA issues and should be taken to a policy discussion venue. SpinningSpark 22:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Lets get started. scope_creep^Talk 16:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: There is about 18 duplicate references. Do you want to use ref tags i.e <nowiki>^[2]</nowki> format, to remove the duplicates. I've read the first essay. I did have a pages worth of response, with several reasons why your approach is wrong and essentially statist, but didn't think this was the right venue. scope_creep^Talk 15:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't, for the reasons given in the previous discussions. You are right, this is not the right venue. I have no idea why you are calling me statist, but I think I'll choose to take it as a compliment rather than a personal attack. SpinningSpark 16:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources

Very good sources. All publishers checked. Close this. scope_creep^Talk 16:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Broadness

I think in term broadness of sources, it is successful. I think you have very wide coverage and its fine. scope_creep^Talk 22:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images

1. Image of the ABC telegraph. Can you please update caption to An ABC telegraph instrument from the General Post Office era, dated 1885 or combination thereof.
   • How do you know the instrument is dated 1885? SpinningSpark 18:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   It is written on the case. scope_creep^Talk 19:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Done SpinningSpark 21:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. Image of motorcycle rider. OK
3. 8 miles of wire. ok.
4. Cooke ok.
5. Cooke and Wheatstone five-needle telegraph. Can you update this to Cooke and Wheatstone five-needle telegraph from 1837
   • This instrument almost certainly does not date to 1837, it's not the one made by Cooke and Wheatstone. It probably is not even one that was in service. Most likely a much later reproduction purely for display purposes. SpinningSpark 21:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
     • Again that was not apparent from the caption nor the image description, unless it I missed it. Small explanation. scope_creep^Talk 21:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
       • That would involve putting our own guesswork into the article. SpinningSpark 22:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Cooke and Wheatstone single-needle instrument. ok.
7. Henley-Foster two-needle telegraph. Can you update this to Henley-Foster two-needle telegraph from 1875
   • That is not an actual instrument, it is a drawing from a periodical article. The publication is dated 1875, but that does not mean the drawing represents something from 1875. In all likelihood, none of these equipments were left in service by that date. SpinningSpark 21:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Caption didn't inform me of that. I wouldn't have known if you hadn't told me. You'll need to explain. scope_creep^Talk 21:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   It is self-evidently a drawing. Where it wss first published is not very important for the reader's understanding. SpinningSpark 22:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   I wouldn't have guessed that in a months of Sunday's, its weird. scope_creep^Talk 22:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Right that fine. Thinking of the wrong image. ok. Close. scope_creep^Talk 23:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

8. Telcon cable works at Greenwich. Can you update to Telcon cable works at Greenwich circa 1865–66
   • Done. SpinningSpark 21:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
9. The nondescript hut where the Porthcurno cables were landed. ok.
10. The equipment inside the Porthcurno hut. ok.
11. British telegraph All Red Line global network in 1902.
    • Is there an issue with this one? SpinningSpark 21:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't like the original image as it seems be coloured by the paper, cheap paper or possibly artificially coloured. I saw the original or what seemed the original, in white with red lettering, colouring. I think would be closer to what it would be, as it would only be the purview of senior management. I had a look, but there is no public domain image available with those routes in detail in white, that I can see. Apart from that long winded explanation, its ok. scope_creep^Talk 22:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you're right that the yellowing is fake. It seems to have come from the Internet Archive and they do that with a lot of their old books. I'll get it cleaned up, but that may not happen in the timescale of this GA. I don't know what you mean by "...that long winded explanation." The caption currently reads British telegraph All Red Line global network in 1902. Which part of that caption do you think is unnecessary and can be removed? SpinningSpark 13:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cool it has been updated. Excellent.okscope_creep^Talk 15:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • The image has been retouched. SpinningSpark 12:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
12. Lord Kelvin, gave the first mathematical description of retardation. ok.
13. Hugh Childers. Hugh Childers 1878 may be useful.
    • I know that date is on the Commons page, but there is no indication where that came from. The claimed source of the image has no date there. SpinningSpark 21:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. SpinningSpark 13:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Came from the National Portrait Gallery here:[5] It is dated 1878. It has the same placement structure. Button is the same place, beard as well. scope_creep^Talk
14. William Preece, 1904. ok
15. Lord Rothermere, 1914

16. 

    

    Punched paper tape as used for Baudot-Murray code messages. This is not ok. Very modern punched tape image and description is wide of the mark. It was used computing up to the 1970's. An other image would ideal if it is available.
    • Punched tape did not significantly change over the period it was used, but I think user:Ted Coles should justify this image as he put it in the article. It replaced the image I originally added File:Baudot Tape.JPG. The section in the article is mostly discussing the 1930s, and I'll use a 1930s image if one can be found, but tape from the 1970s really isn't any different. SpinningSpark 22:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TedColes: repinging because there is a typo in the first one. SpinningSpark 22:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think its changed for decades. I've seen paper tape from the 40 and 50's and it wasn't as clean cut as that and a lot thinner and dirtier. Either that or its tape from the image has been sitting in the cupboard for 50 years and is now new old stock, sorta. scope_creep^Talk 23:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you have pictures of your dirty tape from the 1940s? If you do, we might be able to use it. If you don't, there is no point talking about it—the choices are to use one of the images we have or have no image at all. You didn't say what you thought of the alternative image I linked above. Baudot-Murray code was still in use in odd corners as late as the 1970s, and the tape used looked identical to these pictures. SpinningSpark 13:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • No unfortunately. I wish I some of it, used, as it is deeply cool. The stuff I saw was in box in an old building that was being repurposed in the mid 1980's. It had been sitting there for donkeys, including old tapes, disk unit, terminals, old workstations, screen, old mainframe bits, all sorts of weird and wonderful kit and it all went in the bin as there was no value seen in it, unlike now. I was in a computer club in school and has a chance to look it. scope_creep^Talk 14:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Close it for the moment. scope_creep^Talk 15:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • The previous picture was of a very tatty and probably unreadable piece of tape that appeared to have been fan-folded. As far as I know fan-folding of tape was only used by Digital Equipment Corporation with 8-hole tape. I don't know of any evidence to suggest that tape as in the replacement illustration is not identical to the tape in use when Baudot-Murray coded tape was first introduced. Illustrations in old telegraphy books are drawings. Given the world-wide use of telegraphy in the early 20th century, and the success of five-hole tape as a storage medium, a change in the form of tape would have required a very good reason and one that would have been mentioned in the histories of telegraphy, but I can find none.--TedColes (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's fine, the work has shown the format has pretty much stayed the same for decades. I think we can put it down an illusion to a fading memory. Close it. scope_creep^Talk 08:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • @TedColes: I'm not convinced that that tape is fan-folded, especially as we don't know of any fan-folded 5-hole applications. I think it has just been scrunched up. Also, I don't think that "tatty" is a disadvantage for the image in the context of this article – it gives the impression of age. But I'll go along with your choice of image if you don't agree. SpinningSpark 12:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • @scope_creep. The thickness (0.1mm) and weight (75 to 90 gsm) of modern tape are given in this book. Similar figures in inches are given in this source. That is about the same weight as typical copier paper. I doubt that historic tape was ever made much thinner than that, it would be too weak to run through high speed tape readers. SpinningSpark 12:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • I suspect fan folding was used to enable it to be archived quickly. I don't think it was fan-folded. It was a tape I saw. It wasn't folded. I think it would very hard to find an image from that time as the material was disposable and very easy to get rid of. There is really only two instances of when that kind of stuff becomes available that I've seen. One is a computer museum or possibly a transport museum, or an industry which has been under heavy regulation for decades, e.g. the UK electrical generating companies and then subsequently deregulated. They throw their old kit out for new. I have seen that in the UK when I worked at an outfit in the late 90's that worked in that area. I would use a caveat, stick with the image you have until something else turns up. It is a good image, its in focus, its clear and represents the subjects well. I would date it to 1970, or c. scope_creep^Talk 15:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
17. Post Office telegram messenger motorcycle. Ok. Change the circa to 'c.' only
    • It already is, and has been since the creation of the article. "Circa" does not appear anywhere else in the current article. SpinningSpark 14:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
18. Female telegram messenger during World War I. ok
19. Telegraph messengers collecting telephone messages for bombed-out telephone subscribers at an emergency telephone bureau. Change to Telegraph messengers collecting telephone messages for bombed-out telephone subscribers at an emergency telephone bureau 1942
    • Done. SpinningSpark 14:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
20. Valentines Day Greetings Telegram. Should that not be St Valentines Day Greetings Telegram Seems to the saint who started. Ok.
    • Nobody says "St. Valentine's Day" unless one is intending to observe every feast day in the calendar of saints and end up like Edward Bright. To be serious, the principle source, Kieve, drops the "St." so it would only be justified if it could be shown that was how the GPO was advertising it. SpinningSpark 14:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thats fine. I made a mistake realising the difference in time between the saint and modern valentines day, hence the ok. close. scope_creep^Talk 15:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
21. Can you put a full stop at the end of each caption. Thanks.
    • No, sentence fragments don't take periods per
      WP:CAPFRAG. SpinningSpark 18:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • That fine, but I think it's a get out clause. You can put an enormous amount in a caption, particularly if it complements the image well. scope_creep^Talk 21:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]