Talk:Toronto Magnetic and Meteorological Observatory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Toronto Magnetic and Meteorological Observatory has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on September 2, 2008.
September 13, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

	This article related to weather data or instruments is part of the Weather Data and Instrumentation sub-project of WikiProject Meteorology and Weather Events, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to weather or meteorology. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Meteorology.

[edit] Items that need to be fixed for GA

It's a shame you didn't nominate a line of this article for ;Did You Know?"...which can only be done within 5 days of the creation of a new article, or after a significant expansion of an article from stub status. In my view, it is neutral, "stable" (it's only a week old though), and well-written. The images used are appropriate, and appear to be included into wikipedia properly. Here are the special wikipedia problems with the article.

1. There are no inline references in this article. They need to be added. Style is unimportant, as long as the style is consistent through the article.
2. There are discrepancies between the lead and the remainder of the article. One states 1839, another states 1840 for when it was established. Nowhere in the article do I see it stated that it is the oldest building on campus by one year, but there it is in the lead. There should be no unique information in the lead that cannot be found elsewhere below in the main article. The lead is meant to be a short summary of the article below.
3. We have an issue with multiple wikilinks to the same article. Only the first occurrence of a term is supposed to be wikilinked.
4. We have red wikilinks in the article. Either stubs should be created for them, or they should be removed for the time being until articles can be created for them.

As is common, I will place the article on hold for a week (until September 6) to see if the fixes have been made. If so, it will be passed. If not, it will be failed. Thegreatdr 13:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Some back to you...

Actually (1) is NOT a requirement for GA, only FA.

I will fix all of these.

Uhh, which one? I'm looking...

Again, this is not a requirement for GA. However I placed them in specifically because I want to work on them next. However I am of two minds about the Cooke, does it deserve it's own article? Hmmmm.

Maury 16:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

One is only a serious recommendation (not a requirement) per GA, but if you take care of the inline reference issue now (which is actually pretty easy to do), it saves you heartburn in the future during future edits by others (makes certain lines potentially less contentious), during peer review, and FAC. The multiple wikilink issue is with a university name. I'm glad you plan on fixing these problems. Let me know if you need help concerning ref's. Thegreatdr 21:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Issue 2 has gotten worse, because the year issue has spread into the body of the article. Was it built in 1839, 1840, or 1940? Sabine wasn't alive in the 20th century, so I'm guessing the original nineteenth century years (1839 or 1840) are more correct. The body now has issues because of this, as the time line jumps from the 1830s into the 1940s then back into the 1850s. Thegreatdr 13:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? The body now states that the project started in 1839, and the building was completed "the next year". I don't see a single reference to either the 1830's or 1940. Can you be more specific? Maury 16:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Please take a closer look at second paragraph in section "Sabine's study" - there is a reference to year 1939 (The team arrived in 1939, and set up camp at Fort York in a disused barracks (...)). michalj 15:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but it goes on to state that the buildings were completed the next year. They arrived in 1839 and moved to Fort York, and the buildings were completed the next year in 1840. This seems to be causing much more confusion than I would have imagined! Should I be more explicit? I could easily add the date. Maury 02:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, my confusion was caused by someone fixing the typo before I read your note. Maury 14:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The inline references have been added...but there is a mistake with two of them which don't link to anything. Two lines in the lead are still not explained below. Was the move of the observatory (by 1907) to the University of Toronto? It was never explicitly stated in the main article. A reader looking over the article might think University College, since it was the last college mentioned. If the two are the same, that should be stated somewhere within the article. Also, if this facility marked the beginning of astronomical research in Canada, it needs to be in the main article below as well. A statement like that can not lie only in the lead. In the main article the phrase "Electrification of the tramways along College," what does it mean? Is college a road near the campus, or are we missing an article of speech or two? Also, I'm not sure you can call a building the oldest on campus if it was completely deconstructed/torn down after other buildings on campus were erected. Its materials may be the oldest building materials used on campus, but is that really the same? If you got that statement from a reference, add the appropriate inline reference next to the line and make sure it's in the main article below, where I still don't see it. Thegreatdr 15:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

YFixed the two references mentioned above, refs were accidentally removed during a recent re-arrangement. ^Ariel♥Gold 16:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Y Fixed the college street reference. Maury 02:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Thegreatdr, I'm not sure I understand your first question there. The Observatory was always on University grounds. It moved from one corner of an open quadrangle to the other, it's only maybe 150-200 m from where it used to be. King's College, University College, Hart House, these are all buildings on the campus (or former ones). Maury 11:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Y Ohhh, now I see the problem, it's a gr issue. Fixed. Maury 15:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Holy smokes, ArielGold, THANK YOU for doing all those refs! I was stealing myself up to go in and do them all at once, I have to say I really don't enjoy in-line ref editing :-( And then I see they're just done. :-) Ahhhhh... I can breath out again. You've saved my faith in the wiki! Maury 02:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL You're most welcome, it was not a problem. I'm a WikiFairy, it is what we live for! ^Ariel♥Gold 02:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay...life issues got in the way. Congratulations! Thegreatdr 20:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Informal peer review

As requested on my talk page[1], I'm providing an informal peer review at the request of User:Maury Markowitz. In general, I found it to be an interesting and well-written article; the organization is logical and it appears to be suitably illustrated and appropriately referenced for its current content. I think, however, there are several areas that would benefit from expansion. Here are some suggestions for further improvement of the article.

• Instead of a second link to Edward Sabine generally, link directly to the section on his page that describes the experiments related to declination; this might be better done on the words "multi-year measuring project"
• Specify that the experiment was related to the magnetic declination of Earth, just to clarify for the less enlightened reader
• The two comparison images are disconcerting because of the degree of change in the structure of the building; for example, windows on the tower are facing different directions than they were originally. The caption needs work to make clear the building was completely disassembled and then rebuilt with major changes when the move took place

• You might want to consider having both images in the same image "box", with one caption for both and only a single line under the first one giving the date and orientation. (I have no idea how to actually do that, but there are several image experts around who can probably help.)

• I've reworked the second-last sentence discussing how the building has been used in recent years.
• What did the Department of Surveying and Geodesy use the building for?
• Caption for the final image should include a date, and there's an errant comma at the end.
• The following roles of the observatory should probably be expanded, if any information can be found:

• Development of standard time - was Sir Sanford Fleming involved in the Observatory? Was there a formal study involved?
• National official time keeper -what does this mean? How was it done? How was time-related information exchanged with other parts of the country?
• There is very little discussion of the meteorological work of the Observatory. Did it keep records? If so, what kind? Were there any studies done?

• You might want to try checking Environment Canada information sources for this

• The observatory has always been on U of T property; aside from the physical connection and before it was taken over by the Dept. of Surveying and Geodesy, did it have a formal teaching role within the University? Was it a proper department of the university? Were degrees granted to students?
• Is there any information on the names of scientists and scholars who worked with the Observatory over the years?

The article has a very good framework on which to build, and I suspect that some creative digging will probably fill a fair number of gaps. This review is based strictly on my own observations, and doesn't include a lot of the Manual of Style comments that would come from a formal Peer Review. I do urge you to consider going through that process, as you might find others have more (or different) suggestions. Thanks for inviting me to read and critique this article. Risker (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)