Talk:Friedrich Accum

message: I'll translate from German. Bwwm 14:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proofread. Extra typos, etc., rooted out - language translation now seems fine. Ref (chew)(do) 03:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: in addition to the one I already added, , 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)
thread_title:  London Gazette 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#:: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
#:: </div>
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)
replies: text: Don't shoot me, but the new web references need publisher and last access date information. Best to use  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)
replies: text: Phew! All done. --Bwwm (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Friedrich Accum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080907000723/http://www.rsc.org/Library/LICHelp/HistoricalChemistry/Thereisdeathinthepot/WhyisAccumimportant.asp to http://www.rsc.org/Library/LICHelp/HistoricalChemistry/Thereisdeathinthepot/WhyisAccumimportant.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Put-Up Job 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Charles Albert's last name