Talk:Foy–Breguet telegraph

Foy–Breguet telegraph instrument with one needle

In Figure 3 of Louis Breguet et ses appareils télégraphiques, there is a Foy–Breguet telegraph instrument with one needle. --Bonita Juarez (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Great job finding that and the other source you put in the article. Shaffner also describes the one-needle system for circumstances where only one line is available. It uses the same alphabet as the two-needle instrument except that the two positions of each character are sent sequentially instead of in parallel. SpinningSpark 23:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. You are the one who is doing a great job with this article. I discovered that other types of telegraph exist. I learnt something yesterday. :-) --Bonita Juarez (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Overlinking

Bonita Juarez, you might want to take a look at WP:OVERLINK. The guideline discourages a lot of the links that you have added. SpinningSpark 23:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Well, History is not my cup of tea, I am not familiar with Napoleon and I hope I have the good French revolution. About geography, I would say try to ask an average american in the streets. In my opinion, the OVERLINK study is biaised because statistics are done on wikipedia usual users who have a certain culture and not new people who never used wikipedia and access the culture for their first time. Futhermore, is it taken into account that some articles are barely read so their links to other articles will be barely barely used? ;-) --Bonita Juarez (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, the bottom line is that those are the guidelines and we should stick to them unless there are exceptional circumstances. The point is, not what readers know, but what they are likely to want to know based on their interest in this article. A reader who is interested in telegraphs is unlikely to be interested in a general article on France. Nor are they likely to not know what it is, even Americans. SpinningSpark 14:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Foy–Breguet telegraph/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 12:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ganesha811, thanks very much for reviewing. As you have probably seen, there was a previous review that stalled because I was not able to find the time to deal with the issues raised. Hopefully, I have now addressed these – the main addition being an extensive "Operation" section. SpinningSpark 14:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is good! I like your style. I note that you prefer two spaces after a full stop to one, but that's no problem. Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues here.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass. Some paragraphs have only one citation, but that's acceptable if it is indeed entirely sourced from one, reliable place.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Pass, sources look good, reliable and authoritative.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass. No issues found.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No violations detected. Some sources offline - to what extent they can be checked, are fine. Assume good faith for the rest. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass. No significant areas of missing coverage found, after first GA review expansion.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Level of detail is good. For a slightly technical subject it's accessible to the general reader.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues with neutrality.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, most work done in March.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Change "Display" to "Appearance" in first caption - "Display" raises some questions, isn't precise. But it is the display part of the apparatus. Why is that not precise? It is no more the whole telegraph than your computer display is the whole computer. SpinningSpark 14:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC) I see your point - but to a lay person, the use of that word is a little confusing. Let's rephrase if we can - would something like "Display box of the Foy-Breguet telegraph" or "Signal display box" be accurate? As currently written, to a casual reader it is unclear that the word "display" applies to the object in the image, and not the image itself. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Typo in second caption - "opertor" to "operator" Fixed. SpinningSpark 14:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.

@Ganesha811: are you waiting for something from me before closing? I'm not trying to hurry you up, but it is odd that this is still open. SpinningSpark 18:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Spinningspark, hi! You're definitely trying to hurry me up, but that's not a problem. :) I hadn't seen that you had updated the caption on the first image - that was the only outstanding issue. Now that I see that that's been addressed, I'll close the review. Thanks for the nudge. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)