Talk:Friedrich Accum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Good articleFriedrich 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 so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 1, 2008Good article nomineeListed


Untitled

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

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)[reply]

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

London Gazette

in addition to the one I already added, "No. 17212".

25 January 1817. {{cite magazine}}: Check date values in: |date= (help), 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)[reply
]

GA Review

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
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 05:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

A Put-Up Job

It should be noted that many people believe that the persecution of Professor Accum was instigated by sore losers deeply upset over his publication of the depraved adulteration of British foodstuffs in his Treatise, Death in the Pot.


Having conspired against the author, they were able to continue with their hideous, filthy practices, even past the revelations of his successors, Drs. Mitchell, Wakley, Postgate and Hassall, due to libertarian dismantling of previous royal regulation as well as libertarian refusal to implement further regulation for new challenges, for most of the rest of the century: Buyer Beware !


Apart from the unpleasantness of eating refuse, even after the Food Acts by the time of WWI the poorer classes especially were far less fit and properly nourished than was possible.


See: Want and Plenty --- A Social History of diet in England from 1815 to the present day by Dr. John Burnett. 1966


https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Plenty_and_Want.html?id=8ENLmMZS8W8C&redir_esc=y Claverhouse (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Albert's last name

Should Charles Albert's last name be spelled "Browne" or "Brown"? The article is not consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:6B0:E:2B18:0:0:0:71 (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Friedrich_Accum&oldid=1204481601"