The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Oliver Evans[edit]

Nominator(s): Unus Multorum (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A super interesting article written by me that attracted not much commentary last time, but I promise for those willing to read a roller-coaster ride through the life of an eccentric and today little-known Delaware engineer who invented the automated flour mill, the high-pressure steam engine and disputably the first auto-mobile in America. Unus Multorum (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments by Wehwalt
Lede
  • "he then worked" strike "then", unneeded
  • If he's generally credited with the first American automobile, isn't that significant enough that it should be in the lede paragraph?
Early life
  • "Oliver was the fifth of eleven children; he had four sisters and seven brothers" four sisters, seven brothers, plus Oliver himself equals twelve.
  • "Relatively little else" I'm not seeing the nuance that "relatively" adds, and would cut the word.
  • " when it premièred in 1778" premièred may be too fancy a word. Went into use?
  • "which formed the bed" I would cut.
  • " but the design was not pursued due to a perceived lack of commercial opportunity" a bit involved, perhaps "but could find no financial backing". I might move this sentence to the end of the paragraph as otherwise the word "invention" in the next is ambiguous.
  • "now in great demand" most likely should be "then in great demand"
  • Was a patent granted for the card machine? I imagine the patent applied for would have been granted by Delaware?
  • "That year, aged 23, Evans married Sarah Tomlinson, daughter of a local farmer, in Old Swedes' Episcopal Church in Wilmington." Evans was born in 1755, and the last year spoken of was 1783.
    • Done, these simple maths errors I should have noticed long before now... Unus Multorum (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Developing etc.
  • "Two of his elder brothers purchased from their father part of the Newport farm estate and intended to start a mill there" This needs simplification. We don't see that there's a connection between the previous sentence and this until well into it, and the reader may need to go back. I would simply say that "Two of his brothers intended to start a mill in Newport" and then go on with the dash and the rest of the sentence as before. At some point it might be worth mentioning the increasing industrialization of northern Delaware.
  • "Furthermore ... In addition" I would not use both in the same paragraph.
  • "over the next half-decade" What happened to the brothers's mill? Looking down, I see two paragraphs ahead it was a conventional design at first. I would try to consolidate the initial mentions of the brothers's mill, then go on to the next half decade. At present, it is a bit disjointed. Also, the last time reference was "the 1780s" making the "next half-decade" a bit imprecise.
  • "onerous" possibly "labor-intensive"
  • "The use of chains of buckets to raise water was a Roman technology and used " double use of use/used, and I think you need a "had been" before used.
  • "needing cooling" and drying? After all, it was not called a cooling floor ...
  • " would cause the rake rotations to slowly move flour towards central chutes, which would take the flour down to be sifted" The repetition of "rake". Possibly "would slowly move the flour towards central chutes, from which the material would be sifted.
  • " removed manual intervention and meant the elimination of most entry points for flour contamination" maybe "saved much labor and reduced the opportunity for contamination"
  • "that requiring no humans" grammar
  • "who struggled to see the potential of Evans's ideas" it doesn't sound like they struggled very hard. Maybe "who saw little potential in Evans's ideas".
  • "across the eastern states" This does not serve to disambiguate, as they all were in the east at the time.
  • "In these years Evans finished constructing the first fully automated flour mill based on his perfected designs, and the Evans brothers " Which years? And was this the brothers mill? That would explain why the brothers had an interest in the process, but it's unclear.
  • "One difficulty was that Evans lacked patience coupled with a" I would rephrase as "Evans lacked patience and had a ..." The difficulty (for Evans) should be clear to the reader without you needing to point it out.
  • "after it was fully automated" You have not mentioned this. Where did he get the money for the conversion?
  • "Disbelief" is this the proper word? Maybe "This conviction".
  • "it proved a success" What does "it" refer to?
  • "He would also in that year add" I use "would" to refer to later in the past as well, but the year seems tightly bounded here. We're talking about 1789. Suggest "He added" The word "designs" appears twice in the sentence, and the context of the second use is a bit unclear.
  • "Evans moved to Wilmington " I would toss in a "from Newport" or the equivalent. You have not mentioned his residence in a while.
  • "His inventions were given" the word "his" is used to refer to two different people in the same sentence, which is usually going to get you comments from reviewers.
  • You are not consistent between US and U.S.
  • The actual jobs of the three patent examiners might be worth mentioning. State, War, and AG, as I recall.

Writer etc.

  • " he saw Evans's technology at work in the mills there" where?
  • "millers desiring to construct machinery for their mills, as well as promoting his automated mill designs" some use for "mill" synonyms.
  • Why is Thomas Ellicott redlinked when Jonathan Ellicott was not?
  • "Evans soon received influential interest in his book" Is this phrase really needed? The subscribers whom you list, I think, are prominent enough that this seems redundant.
  • Did Evans invent the toggle joint? If I recall correctly, in my researches on Franklin Peale, he found toggle joint technology in use in Europe in 1833.

Developing

  • I'd give the reader a brief thumbnail sketch of the development of the steam engine in Britain, with a focus on Watt.
  • You link Watt twice in about five sentences. I would not really describe him as a contemporary, as he retired in 1800. He finished most of his work about as Evans was getting started.
  • "(the design of which Evans had some involvement)" huh?
  • "whilst" generally not used in the US, and Evans was American.
  • Did Evans's interest in steam engines have anything to do with the fact that the Watt/Boulton patent had just run out?
  • "—though Evans persisted" Not sure what this is contrasting to.
  • The prose is starting to feel a little less polished than earlier. You might want to go over this and following sections.
  • "safely operate a high-pressures" This seems a bit muddled. Possibly "safely contain high-pressure steam" if that would be accurate.
  • "making it practical to make locomotives and steamboats" double use. Perhaps, "making locomotives and steamboats practical"
  • "a couple of" a bit informal, go with "two". "plus it ..." will also get you informality comments.

Oruktor

  • Contract should not be used as a verb.
More later. My biggest complaint re the article is a tendency to use ten words where five will do, but I'm prone to that myself. You might want to watch out for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steam

  • "no paying stockholders to launch it," perhaps "no investors to fund it".
  • It's "The Franklin Institute", so the "the" should be capped and part of the link.
Mars
  • "improvised tools and workers," improvised workers?
  • "Soho Foundry" I think you'll find it was the Soho Manufactury. And to my knowledge, they did not build steam engines there. Boulton/Watt engineers usually constructed them on site using parts many of which were produced to specifications by blacksmiths near to the installation.
  • "large steam engine of its own to grind materials and work wrought iron" The engine did this or did the machines powered by it?
  • "In one example where" replace with "When"
Pittsburgh
  • "exporting". As they were not leaving the country, suggest "sending"
  • Pittsburgh is linked and given its state name on its second usage (disregarding its use as part of a company title)
  • "amongst" "among" is much more common in the US.
  • "put ... offside" not a US idiom. Suggest "alienated" instead.
  • "and ultimately reduced his claim against Robinson to $1,000" I imagine the jury did this, but the long separation between subject and clause is causing issues here.
  • "Patent Act of 1836" probably should not be italicized.
  • "didn't get far" you shouldn't use contractions and it's a bit informal, suggest a more formal phrase
  • "would turn out" I think you want "turned out" without the "would" here.
Legacy
  • I'm not sure i like "undoubtedly" in a legacy section. Persuade the reader, don't hit hit him over the head.
  • "Evans'" not consistent with "Evans's" found elsewhere. (at least 3x in this sectio
  • "and within a generation the majority of bread consumption shifted from the home-made to store-bought" This is a bit problematical "majority of bread consumption?" perhaps "and within a generation the majority of bread produced was store-bought rather than homemade".
  • Consecutive sentences begin with "And". Consecutive paragraphs begin in "And yet"
That's it for this run. I'll read it again when you've finished this.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- appreciate the effort the nominator is making to address the comments so far but we're over three weeks into this nom and still have outstanding points from just one review; best I think if the work continues outside the FAC process as we're a long way from achieving the necessary commentary and support for promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More