Wikipedia:Peer review/Metric system/archive1

Metric system

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is one of Wikipeida’s 1000 Level 3 vital articles. I believe that it has reached or is near the level of a good article, but reviewers for this class of article are few and far between, so it has not yet been graded as a “B” article. I would like the reviewer to firstly grade this as a Class “B” article (if appropriate) and to make comments of work that is needed to make this into a Good Article

Thanks, Martinvl (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I (User:Martinvl) have taken the liberty of numbering the paragraphs to simplify the subseqent response:

1. I think the article is more or less B-class, but WikiProject Measurement employs one of those detailed B-class grading systems where giving a B grade is practically giving a GA review. The only B criterion that this was failed on last time was the referencing, which seems solid overall but has some points that people could quibble about, which I detail below. So I haven't given it a B rating though I think it deserves it (yeah, I'm gutless and hate decisions).
2. I think it's near to satisfying the essential requirements for a good article—it seems to use some of the foremost sources and to cover the main points of the subject quite well—but there are some issues that would probably come up in a GA review. For instance, the use of newsgroups as reliable sources is likely to be challenged. If the author of the relevant post in the newsgroup link is a respected expert on measurement systems or something like that, you can probably defend the source based on that expertise, in the same way as scientists' blogs are sometimes used as sources. But if not, you'll probably need to find a substitute source.
3. There are also a few cases where statements are obviously not supported by citations because they're at the ends of paragraphs. Some of them probably count as subject-specific common knowledge, but I doubt all of them do (I'm pretty sure the sentences at the end of the paragraph preceding "Original metric system" don't). A citation at the end of each paragraph isn't a hard requirement for a GA, but it's probably preferred, so you might want to look over other uncited passages and see if you can find sources to support them.
4. There are other small issues with the "clear" GA criterion. Overall I think the article is clearly written, but sometimes terms that need definition don't have them. "Mise en pratique", for instance is not a widely understood term and needs to be briefly defined right after its first appearance in the article. On a similar but less significant note, I feel that people's names should generally be given in full when they're first referred to in the text. To me, the use of surnames alone on first reference gives a text a slight feeling of being written for insiders. I found only a few seriously awkward spots in the writing, which I've tried to reword; let me know if I've screwed up the intended meaning of anything by doing so. One that I found but wasn't sure how to change: "Initially (1908) multipliers that were positive powers of ten had Greek-derived prefixes such as kilo- and mega- and those that were negative power of ten had Latin-derived prefixes such as centi- and milli-." Why "(1908)"? If there was some conference that year, I don't see it mentioned elsewhere in the article. From what I understand, that rule about prefixes dates to the invention of the metric system and wasn't broken until 1935, so I'm not sure why 1908 is here.
5. There's one persistent Manual of Style issue. I know it's comparatively minor and not essential for GA, but dashes should be consistent; see WP:MOSDASH. Right now, hyphens, en dashes, and em dashes are used with no consistency at all.
6. Finally, the references are messy. Page numbers are sometimes abbreviated with "pg." and sometimes with "p." and "pp.", and elements of citations are sometimes jumbled, saying things like "Retrieved 26 March 2011Text version of Malaisé's book" and " 's Gravenhage and Amsterdam: de Gebroeders van Cleef." That may not be a GA issue in itself, but science GAs are supposed to follow the scientific citation guidelines, one of which is a consistent reference style. I think the references are trying to follow a consistent style, but between the different document types you're citing and the jumbled look of so many citations it's hard to tell. And I wonder if putting the two most frequently cited sources at the top and then referring to them in short form in the inline refs, while other things have full inline citations, is a consistent style. I'm afraid I don't know enough about this issue—I've worked out one citation system for my own articles, and I stick to it. If you know more than I do, please ignore me, but if you don't you may want to consult somebody who knows reference styles, at the help desk or somewhere.
7. I do think this is on its way to being a GA, and I'm glad there's progress on such a fundamental subject. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. A. Parrot (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Response

Thank you for taking the time to review this article. I will answer each point here as I address them.

• (§2) The newsgroup citation could be removed with minimal loss of quality - however I haved chosen to add and Wikilink the name of the poster.
• (§4) First names of all people added on first mention (apart from Napoleon Bonaparte).
• (§4) Removed reference to 1908 - it was not particularly important anyway
• (§4) Mise et practique defined in-line. Martinvl (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• (§3) Citations have been added (or moved) to the end of each paragraph apart from one (which I believe is a case of the "Sky being blue").Martinvl (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• (§6) Two references at top of reference list have been merged into list. Martinvl (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• (§6) I have amended the text "Retrieved 26 March 2011Text version of Malaisé's book". The note about Malaisé's book was incorrect.
• (§6) The text " 's Gravenhage and Amsterdam: de Gebroeders van Cleef." looks OK to me. "'s Gravenhage and Amsterdam" are two Dutch cities - 's Gravenhage is also known as "Den Haag" or (in English) "The Hague". The book publishers were "de Gebroeders van Cleef" (van Cleed brothers). Martinvl (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber

• A few other countries in the world have not adopted the metric system; many sources cite Liberia, Burma and the United States as the only countries not to have done so. - seems a bit convoluted and involved for the lead and a bit hearsay-ey. Just list the countries and leave this for the vody of the article. The lead is pretty long as is.

• The metric system was designed to be universal, that is, available to all. - just leave one of these in - labouring the point.

• I wonder if the history section would read better as the first section under the lead. Seems odd as hisotry is touched on in universality subsection. I think it'd give a better narrative and make for a more engaging read overall.

Response from Martinvl

Hi Casliber, Thank you for your comments.

• I take on board the first two comments and have amended the text accordingly.
• I have extended the existing paragraph to emphasise that the "history" bit in the section "Universality" was sufficiently important as it showed that, in the beginning at any rate, the French Revolutionaries were actually trying to put their philosophy of "universality" into practice. Martinvl (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)