# Talk:Earth-return telegraph

This review is transcluded from Talk:Earth-return telegraph/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 21:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kingsif's automated message.  Nice to meet you and thanks for reviewing. SpinningSpark 22:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
First question: where is the promised timeline at the bottom? Though the history section seems long enough in a relatively short article that a timeline probably isn't needed
It's not a timeline of earth-return telegraphy. It's a timeline of the number of conductors used in electromagnetic telegraphy, as the title says.
However, there is that chart, which I don't really understand, though I assume it means something. That could be an issue.
The chart is the timeline, see point above for meaning.  It's relevance is that number of wires directly relates to the economic impact of going to earth return.  I thought a chart would help make that point clear to the reader. SpinningSpark 23:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@Spinningspark: So the main issue with this part then would be that it's really unclear. Not every reader is going to be able to find and ask you, and good articles don't leave people confused. Is there any way it could be made clear. Also, to explain the relevance of a timeline for the number of conductors used in electromagnetic telegraphy, and what that is, for people who don't know anything about telegraphy. Kingsif (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I've moved the chart to the section that discusses this issue which hopefully gives it better context. SpinningSpark 17:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@Spinningspark: Is there any reason the chart is not chronological? The purpose seems to be number through time, not just increasing number. Kingsif (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
There is already a note in-article below the chart explaining this. SpinningSpark 00:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Ah, yes - I'd been reading it top-down and with the jump to 1809 thought there were more out of order because of the reverse chronology. Kingsif (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Other images all good
Copyvio clear
Could a simpler word than commensurate be used, especially in the lead
Changed to "corresponding". SpinningSpark 00:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
The headers of the first two section could be improved, but I won't say they need to be in order to pass (at least make 'Reason for using' into 'Reason for use', though)
I've made the change you suggested.  What is wrong with "Description" as a heading?  That seems like a perfectly adequate heading for a section saying what it is and what it does. SpinningSpark 00:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
An encyclopedia doesn't describe. Most of the time, 'Description' sections don't just describe something (which would probably be OR and is non-encyclopedic), but a header saying this gives a false expectation and can lead newer editors to think it's fine to just make an article where they wax on about something. Kingsif (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
While the 'explain it like I'm 5' style of the description is probably useful to some, it's not an encyclopedic tone. Could this section (particularly first paragraph) be rewritten.
Writing an explanation that is understandable to those who don't have a good grasp of the basics is not the same as writing in a childish style.  A particular galling comment after your complaint about the use of "commensurate".  So come off it please – rather than a vague unactionable insult, give specific comments on items that actually fail the GA criteria (and I'm pretty sure that "don't explain it like I'm 5" isn't one of them, but "understandable to an appropriately broad audience" definitely is). SpinningSpark 00:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
What? ...I'm referencing a meme, by the way, if they 'like I'm 5' upset you. It was supposed to be a quick way to get to the point, while also funny. And I very pointedly said it was useful, but it's descriptive, not informative. They're very distinct tones, that's what I was asking for the change of, but you seem to have not paid attention to the point of the comment to instead get offended at my shorthand. Kingsif (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for flying off the handle, that wasn't very helpful.  It's still the case that not being specific is unactionable without some (possibly mis-)interpretation.  The only thing that strikes me as a tone issue is (also known as ground) which could be simply "(ground)" if you like.  It needs to remain in some form because this is a US/UK terminology issue. SpinningSpark 06:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Spinningspark: How is directly asking for something to be rewritten so it has an encyclopedic tone unactionable and open to interpretation?! Wikipedia has a banner that asks for articles to be rewritten because of unencyclopedic tone and does not elaborate, I wouldn't think I'd have to do so for an experienced editor. Kingsif (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if every sentence begins with a double-space, but please correct it wherever it appears
See User:Spinningspark/Two spaces at the end of sentences SpinningSpark 06:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Spinningspark: I can understand that you learned that way, but double spaces haven't been standard since the 80s and will currently get a college paper failed, it'd be good practice to not reintroduce them. Kingsif (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
This sentence The first use of an earth return to complete an electric cicuit was by William Watson in 1747 if experiments using water as a return path are discounted. needs some punctuation and typo fixing
I can't see how punctuation helps, but I've recast it to make it shorter. SpinningSpark 07:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Spinningspark: I was thinking a comma after '1747' for clarity of expression. It's better now, but that comma would still be useful. Kingsif (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Does 1747 need to be repeated in the next sentence, especially with the awkward comma placing it forces
Done SpinningSpark 07:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Could the early history be tightened up, to not just spout the various early discoveries of ground use in electricity. Particularly, why on earth is water even mentioned?
The early history is a series of isolated experiments.  What more is there to say?  Water is mentioned because using bodies of water (rivers, harbours etc) as a return path is a very similar principle to earth return.  So much so that some authors give this as the first use of earth return.  However, putting that first would be supporting that position in Wikipedia's voice.  So I have put the first actual earth return first, but with the qualification on water return to indicate there is another possible interpretation.  Having mentioned water return, it is kind of obligatory to give the first use of it and not leave the reader wondering. SpinningSpark 07:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Spinningspark: The article isn't about earth return, though. It's about the earth-return telegraph. A bit of background on earth return being discovered can be justified, but not more than that, and certainly not water. Kingsif (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
It's just one sentence giving the ealiest known example.  The ultimate justification for this is that my sources think the two things are connected. Beauchamp's History of Telegraphy is particularly direct; "the use of an earth return (strictly speaking, a 'water return')..." SpinningSpark 17:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
'Earth return' is variously hyphenated and not, pick one for consistency
I believe I have been consistent.  The hyphenated form is used when it is being used as a compound attributive modifier.  See WP:HYPHEN bullet #3. SpinningSpark 07:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Spinningspark: I understand adjectival forms, I think I was referring to inconsistencies when it mentioned just 'earth return' (the concept). Kingsif (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I've been through them all and think I've got every one now. SpinningSpark 17:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The phrasing of seriously disturbed and obliterated could be toned-down
Changed "obliterated" → "ovrwhelmed".  Some such word is needed to avoid going into a long-winded explanation.  I don't see what is wrong with "seriously disturbed".  There is a difference between adding noise to a data link that causes the occassional error, and noise that makes the signal completely unreadable. Again, some such adverb is needed; I'm happy to take suggestions on what that should be. SpinningSpark 08:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Can code pulses get a wikilink to an appropriate article
Done SpinningSpark 08:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
For a reader that does not know about telegraphy, the sentence Repeaters were not available for submarine cables until the middle of the 20th century. is completely meaningless. It is possibly irrelevant, but if it isn't, can it be connected to the context
Context explained. SpinningSpark 08:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Ditto for the next sentence about syphon recorders
Done SpinningSpark 08:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
The sentence A return conductor following the same path as the main conductor will have the same interference induced in it is fine - though again, simpler terminology than 'induced in it' would be helpful - but would read better if connected/integrated with the sentence before it.
Induced is the correct term and very frequently occurs in discussions of electrical circuits.  It's hard to come up with a replacement that isn't in some way vague or inaccurate, but I'll listen to suggestions.  See next bullet for the rest. SpinningSpark 09:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
The next sentence, though, about common-mode interference, again doesn't seem to make sense and feels out of place - especially since it seems to offer a solution but the next sentence jumps right back to the problem
The sentence order here is, (1) state the solution, (2) say what the solution does, (3) explain why it works, and (4) give an example of it being put into practice.  I don't think that the sentence order per se is any kind of problem.  It really is necessary to mention common-mode interference rejection; the previous sentence has just said that another conductor with even more interference was introduced.  That absolutely requires an explanation of why that is actually helpful.  I've recast the Cape Town example to make the context clearer. SpinningSpark 09:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Maybe remove the 'terrible' before 'noise problems'.
I've changed that to "severe".  Some sort of adjective is needed here; nowadays we would consider the poor quality of earth-return telephone lines made them virtually unusable. SpinningSpark 09:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
immediately almost entirely disappeared → "immediately disappeared almost entirely"
Done SpinningSpark 09:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


### Overall
 On hold A range of prose issues, details above, and a confusing empty timeline section with contextless table. Kingsif (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I think I've addressed every point now. SpinningSpark 09:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Spinningspark: Responded to a few things above. Will look at the others as they are in the article further. Kingsif (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I can't accept some of your comments above and this review seems to be going well outside the GA criteria in places.  I'm totally baffled by your claim that "[a]n encyclopedia doesn't describe".  Of course it does.  Where is that position supported in guidelines?  I'm not going to continue to respond to minor matters of style.  Things like that should not really be in a GA review in the first place per WP:GACN, but once I've replied that I don't agree to a style issue, and if it isn't something proscribed in the MOS, that should be an end to it per MOS:STYLEVAR.  Whether or not it would fail a term paper is utterly irrelevant; Wikipedia articles aren't meant to be term papers.  You are welcome to discuss my choice of styles on my talk page, but please don't keep niggling about the same issue over and over.  Go to a second opinion if you feel it is really problematic. SpinningSpark 16:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
So tell me where you think it's gone outside the criteria? Instead of just saying you're going to ignore what you don't like. I'm not an unreasonable guy, but from you jumping down my throat for nothing I can't say it's been fun. As for "[a]n encyclopedia doesn't describe".  Of course it does.  Where is that position supported in guidelines? - it doesn't, it explains. And whichever guideline led to the orange tag for "improve tone". Encyclopedic tone means we say "The primary function of a chair is for sitting; other types of chair may encourage lounging" rather than 'A chair is a big thing you sit on'. But my main issue with this article is that parts just aren't clear, sorry. And since I have no interest in your outdated typing outside this review: I learned that Pluto was a planet, but I don't make Wikipedia say that. Do as you will, but from my MOS, double-space is incorrect and such a simple thing to fix. Kingsif (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@Spinningspark: There doesn't seem to have been much activity recently; in fact, the most recent edits 10 days ago ([1] [2]) suggest that the article is still unclear even at the basic level of 'what is earth-return telegraphy'. For me, this article is not a good article - ignoring style, before you jump down my throat on that again, it's not accessible. Other issues that stick out are the table, which I now understand but can't see how it adds to the article, and your insistence that a history of the development of earth return is within focus in this article on a form of telegraphy that just happens to utilize earth return (it's not needed, and it could be confusing for readers who will probably expect something about telegraphy with water because it's been discussed). With no activity, no responses, and need for improvement, I'm going to fail this. If you come back to the article, I'll be happy to see it improved. Kingsif (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Earth-return telegraph/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 21:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I have begun reviewing this article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing Wasted Time R. SpinningSpark 13:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
A solid article, does not need many changes
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Some prose could be clearer in my view, see below
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
One minor issue in the references, see below
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
A couple of aspects could be discussed and relationship with other articles is unclear, see below
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Couple of issues in the captions, see below
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Re breadth and relationship with other articles:
This article does not mention or link to the Single-wire earth return article, but that one has a top xref to this one.  Maybe there could be a {{See also}} to that one from the "Description" section here?  

I don't think a link there would be particularly helpful.  That article is about (or mainly about) power distribution.  Our article here gives all the explanation of earth-return that is necessary (or it should do). SpinningSpark 13:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
How about creating a "See also" section in the article and making it an entry there?  It's definitely on a related topic.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Done SpinningSpark 12:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
There is also some discussion of earth return in the High-voltage direct current.  But there's really no place in any of these articles that discusses why earth return actually works.  Because it will be counter-intuitive to many readers:  Yes, earth has some metals in it, but it's mostly soil and rock, which in isolation are poor conductors.  And how does the current find its way back to this particular source?  Why can't the current go to any other plate buried in the ground?  I realize it isn't necessarily this article's responsibility to explain this – so this isn't actionable for this GA review – but it's something to think about.
However, there is no discussion here about soil resistivity, and I have seen that mentioned as a consideration in reading about earth-return arrangements for telegraph lines.  For example this college course page says that in drier climates there might have to be multiple ground stakes, or water might have to be poured onto stakes, to improve conductivity.

I've expanded on soil as a conductor a little.  I struggled to find a good source on the practice of pouring water on the earth spike.  I'm sure I've seen a source saying that was the practice in parts of the southwest US, but I can't find it again.  Possibly India as well. The source I've used is actually discussing field telephones in WWI, not telegraph, but I think it's justifiable.  Earth-return phone lines have never been very successful and in trench warfare conditions they were often unusable.  They often resorted back to telegraphy (the phones actually had a feature specifically for this) and the source says they were used in this way.
I like the material you added on this and I think the source is fine to use.  My only suggestion would be that you added a link to the general resistivity, but maybe a link to the more specific soil resistivity would be better?   Wasted Time R (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Done, I didn't know (or had forgotten) that article existed. SpinningSpark 12:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
On the question of how the current finds it way back, this is not a question for earth-return articles to answer.  Any circuit that uses a common return conductor between different parts has the same question, and this will apply universally to almost all circuit boards in electronics – all parts of the circuit are unbalanced "single-ended" with the return connected to a 0V rail or plane.  It is a misconception to think that the electrons entering the plane have to find their way to the other end of circuit.  They do not know where they are going when they set off, and in reality go only a very short distance.  What really happens is that when a source is pushing electrons into a wire, it sucks electrons from the common plane (in this case Earth).  When the current reverses electrons are pushed back into the Earth.  This is just Kirchhoff's current law at work.  Another way of thinking of it is that the Earth is so huge that it can absorb or supply any amount of charge required.  In this respect it can be thought of as a giant capacitor rather than a conductor.  It's the electromagnetic wave travelling down the line that carries the information in any communications system, not the charges, which hardly move at all.  This is all basic electrical science which it would be inappropriate to delve into deeply in this article. SpinningSpark 15:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I understand that it's a wave traveling back and that the actual charged particles only move a little. I guess what's puzzling me is that even before the advent of trams, why wouldn't telegraph lines using earth return interfere with each other?  If there are earth-return lines A and B both in operation reasonably near each other, aren't the return currents from A going to end up at the B source just as much as they end up at the A source?  So I remain in the belief that a brief, concise explanation of why this works would be a benefit to readers here. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
The simple answer is that there is not a complete circuit between A and B.  It is a fundamental tenet of electrical network analysis that there must be a complete circuit for current to flow.  The article already says "complete circuit" and I've now repeated it for emphasis.  As I said above, common return paths are a basic electronic design technique.  It is not the place of this article to teach basic analysis.  In fact, it is not the place of Wikipedia, by policy, to teach anything.  Different parts of your mobile phone circuit all use a common return path.  Those parts are much closer together than any telegraph offices ever were, they are even closer than two lines going to the same office.  Yet your mobile phone works just fine with that.  It is, of course, possible to get interference between two telegraph lines, but this was never a major problem in the telegraph era due to the very slow signalling speeds (slow by modern standards). SpinningSpark 12:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Re the prose:
... not wanting to patent the idea for the public good – I know what this is trying to say, but it could be read as that he did not want to patent an idea that would improve the public good.  Should be rephrased.

Done SpinningSpark 15:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
... Earth return became so ubiquitous – This needs to be "However, Earth return soon became so ubiquitous" or something like that.  Because the previous sentence says earth return was so little known that Morse wasn't aware of it, and yet now this sentence is saying it's ubiquitous.  So the language needs to emphasize that there was a big transition.

There is no "however" to avoid overuse of the word (which is a common complaint in Wikipedia reviews).  The article does not say that Steinheil's work was "little known".  I think it actually spread quite rapidly in Europe and it was certainly being used in Britain and the Empire by the mid-1840s.  Morse was a little out of the loop in the US, but he rapidly adopted the idea there too. I've added the word "immediately" to try to clarify that. SpinningSpark 15:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Your change makes this clear.  Regarding 'however', you must be having reviewers who have bought too heavily into the WP:WTA list ...   Wasted Time R (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
... and got as far as provisional protection - For clarity, maybe should add "before the claim was denied" or "before the application was withdrawn" (depending upon what happened).

I have no information on the patent being denied.  I'm not even sure that there exists a public record of refused patents.  As I understand it, a failed patent is simply not issued, so we can see the application - and then nothing happens.  The patentee might get a private letter saying it is not going to be issued, but nothing is in the patent database.  This page says "This patent application was never sealed" which seems to confirm that point.  If you do know of such an archive that is publicly accessible, I'll try and get the information. SpinningSpark 15:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
The introduction of electric power, especially electric tram lines, ... – This should be given a date.  From the article linked to, this happened during the 1880s?

We can put a date on the introduction of electric trams (I've added something on that), but putting a date on when they became an issue for telegraphy is more problematic.  It was a slowly increasing difficulty as trams became more common.  Similarly, we can't put a definite date on when motor traffic started to cause city congestion, it just got steadily worse over the years. SpinningSpark 16:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
... especially electric tram lines, seriously disturbed earth-return telegraph lines. – Trams are usually associated with cities.  Did the tram lines disrupt only telegraph lines running into the same cities, or more broadly?

I don't have a source discussing this, but its going to be trams near the receiving station (and to a lesser extent the sending station as well).  How near is near?  Well the Cape Town example where they had to extend the balanced line six miles out to sea before the problem was cleared gives the reader some idea of that. SpinningSpark 16:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
high-speed automatic working – This term could use a little explanation or a link.

Done SpinningSpark 16:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
On land, repeaters would be used to overcome this problem, – How do repeaters strengthen an earth-return signal?  Are they planted into the ground?

No, the repeaters are in the line, not the earth.  I've tried to clarify this point.  In telegraphy, repeaters are placed at intermediate stations and consist of a relay outputting a repeat of the signal but connected to the voltage of a local battery which brings the signal back to its original level.  This is covered (admittedly briefly) in the repeater article.  Relays are not unique to earth-return circuits, in principle, they can be used with any form of telegraph line so I'm not sure they should be explained in detail here.  In the nineteenth century, there was no practical way of sealing a relay into an underwater cable and no means of powering it if they could.  Repeaters did not come in to submarine cables until the technology had moved beyond telegraphy and relays, i.e., too late. SpinningSpark 16:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 The problem was so severe that not only ...  – Repeat of 'problem ... so severe' from earlier in the paragraph, could be reworded.

Done SpinningSpark 16:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Re the references:
There is a comma at end of fn 16 - not sure if it's a stray or there was supposed to be something after it.

Done SpinningSpark 16:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Re the images:
The caption language bearing the single wire of an earth-return line is kind of confusing.  It's not the poles in the image that are bearing the earth-return, it's the ground underneath the poles.  That college course page mentioned above explains old images more clearly, in my view:  The poles carrying the single wire show that the line is using an earth return.

Changed "line" to "circuit" to try to clarify this. SpinningSpark 16:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Similarly, A disused pole of the Australian Overland Telegraph Line which used to carry four earth-return lines has the same potential confusion, even worse, if a reader thinks that the earth return lines are actually on the poles or that there are four earth-return currents coming back.

I've reworded the caption, but it really isn't possible to explain entirely in the caption.  The reader really has to read the text for that. SpinningSpark 16:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
The Watson and Steinheil captions should be consistent about whether they use first and last name or last name only.

Done SpinningSpark 17:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Finally, I did look at the GA1 review from a while ago, which seems to have gone off the rails.  For what it's worth I type two spaces after a period also.  It's how everyone was taught back in the day and it makes absolutely no difference in how a WP article appears to readers.    Wasted Time R (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The disagreement over sentence spacing was just silly and irrelevant.  The substantive issues were a disagreement over whether water return paths should be discussed (which I argue is supported by sources including them as part of earth-return telegraph history) and the title of the "Description" section.  On the latter, I still fail to understand the objection and the claim that "An encyclopedia doesn't describe" is just baffling to me. SpinningSpark 17:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your very helpful comments.  I may not be able to start responding to them for a few days as there is a non-Wikipedia task that I simply have to get done this weekend. SpinningSpark 15:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Spinningspark: Take your time, no rush on these, especially given the circumstances we are all living through.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I think I've replied to everything now.  Some items haven't led to a change in the article; I hope I have explained those adequately, but if not, please come back on them. SpinningSpark 17:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I just have a few follow-on comments, indicated above; everything else I am okay with.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Regarding common return paths, the Ground (electricity) article does discuss the topic some.  I get that there has to be a completed circuit for the current to flow, but organized return conductors within something like a mobile phone seemed inherently different to me than endless possible paths through the earth.  But obviously not.  Clearly my three college physics courses, including a semester of electricity and magnetism, were way too long ago!  I am passing the article for GA.  It's interesting and informative, good work on it.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)