Talk:Thomas Edison
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thomas Edison article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Revisions succeeding this version of this article is substantially duplicated in one or more external publications. Since these publication(s) copied Wikipedia, rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | Thomas Edison is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Thomas Edison has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This  level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
three-wire system
In the current version of the article this is incorrectly called " the three-prong wire system." The system was always referred to as three-wire not three-prong wire. The present day three-prong plug and socket is a much later development. In fact, plugs and sockets only date to the early 20th century. What Edison designed was a distribution system with a third neutral wire placed between the two main wires (positive and negative) in each branch of the circuit. Because of the direct relationship between voltage and resistance, doubling the distribution voltage to 330 volts meant that the positive and negative main conductors could be one-fourth the standard size. The third or neutral wire, through which little current would flow in a properly balanced system, could be even smaller. This system saved substantially on the amount of copper needed in the distribution system. Paulitaep (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
GA review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Thomas Edison/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 01:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: PeriodicEditor (talk · contribs) 06:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- Hello PeriodicEditor, thanks for taking up this review. Unfortunately I will be inactive for the next several weeks due to a personal matter. I should be able to response to all feedback before Christmas though I recognize this may impact the review. Czarking0 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Czarking0, that's ok, thanks for letting me know. It shouldn't have too much impact though. I won't finish review until after you feedback so you have a chance to comment and address any issues. PeriodicEditor (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
| Criteria | Sub criteria | Result | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Well written | a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct |  |
Prose is understandable and spelling and grammar have been fixed |
| b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation | |
Follows WP:MOS. Does not contain any problematic words to watch. List incorporation is not an issue for this article. | |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research | a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline | |
All references are well formatted. |
| b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose) | |
Well sourced, nothing that could be reasonably challenged is without a source. | |
| c. it contains no original research | |
No obvious original research, all statements seem to be backed up by references. | |
| d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism | |
Very similar to this but based on the version of the article at the time of that articles creation, I believe it is an instance of WP:MIRROR. | |
| 3. Broad in its coverage | a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic | |
Covers all major aspects of his life, inventions and work |
| b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style) | |
Gives a good amount of detail about his work | |
| 4. Neutral | |
Gives non-biased and factual information about him. | |
| 5. Stable | |
No edit warring, only one case of recent vandalism, which was quickly fixed. | |
| 6. Illustrated where appropriate | a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content | |
All images are public domain or self taken images |
| b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions | |
Has informative diagrams that are all relevant | |
Source Check
I have checked all of the sources I could and all were good, however, I cannot check the book sources.
For the book sources, several of them are available or at least searchable via internet archive. I borrowed the Morris book from the library to write this page and had to return it. I can check it out again and provide quotes if you feel that additional spotchecking is in order.Czarking0 (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think additional checking is necessary, all sources supported by the books are non-contreversial and are mostly backed up by other sources. PeriodicEditor (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Other Issues
Might potentially come under WP:TOO BIG, however not enough to warrant failing.
- The talk page had some discussion about this. I personally think it is ok for GA. If further cutting is done I recommend targeting some of the sentences focused on people that worked for him. Czarking0 (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- I agree it wasn't a major issue, it also wasn't fully over TOO BIG PeriodicEditor (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
- Unless you have any objections, I'm going to pass the article for GA PeriodicEditor (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
