Talk:International System of Units/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: FishGF (talk · contribs) 08:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Currently it is too difficult verify much of the article because it relies on personal interpretation of several primary sources such as from the BIPM. FishGF (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• The FishGF comments do not accurately reflect the care and effort expended in bringing this article up to higher quality in preparation for GAN. FishGF appears to lack the skill required of a GA reviewer, so this review will become a community effort rather than the sole responsibility of one GA reviewer. Binksternet (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The article seems pretty comprehensive and well documented. The only little niggle i have with it is that the opposition to introduction (particularly in the UK and US) is hardly mentioned. Otherwise i would not have trouble naming this a good article. Compliments to the various authors. Kleuske (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment from involved editor: the opposition to metrication tends to be toward any variant of the metric system, not specifically to SI. Opposition seems to be mostly documented at articles about metrication in several countries, which are listed at Outline of the metric system#Metrication process. It would probably be good to identify any other Wikipedia articles (of adequate quality) that discuss opposition to metrication and refer to them in this article. Whether Metrication opposition is of sufficient quality to mention is an open question. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The most vigorous opposition to metrication in the UK appears in my view to come from the populist press, such as The Daily Mail. There is very little encyclopeadic-quality discussion as to whether this is genuine oppostion to metrication per se or whether anti-metrication is symbolic of a political agenda. This is touched on in Metrication in the United Kingdom#Assessment of the British metrication programme and Metrication in the United Kingdom#Current usage. Are these sections suitable as references? Martinvl (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion the resistance to metrication in the USA is the most significant, because the USA has more areas of activity that have avoided metrication, and the USA is the world's largest economy. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jc3s5h. Unfortunately I do not know much about the anti-metrication movement in the US. I will nevertheless see what I can find. Martinvl (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• We are not here to praise, or appraise, the amount of work that may have been put into the article. We are here to judge whether the article complies with the good article criteria. The above was just my first impression, I thought the editors might appreciate them up front. I plan, over the next few days, to work through each of the good article criteria, noting here any deviations I might discover. FishGF (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Review by FishGF

With reference to the good article criteria.

I'm sorry, but due to the amount of rework that has occurred during the past 48 hours, I need more time now to read it through again, and review where we are with it. I'll endevour to devote more time to it. FishGF (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Well-written?

• The prose is clear and concise?

The prose looks generally okay, with a few glaring exceptions itemised below, and although conciseness might be a bit too stringent in places, verging on the vague - I'll comment on that further down.

• The following sentence (in lead-in to the Worldwide adoption of SI section) is overly long and confuses tenses, particularly the use of the words "has" and "had": "The CGPM has a role of recommending changes, but had no formal role in the enforcement of such changes although another inter-governmental organisation, the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) had a formal role in providing a forum for the harmonisation of national legislation in respect of metrology."

• This section has been reworded. Martinvl (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• OK, although it is still a very long sentence. FishGF (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• This pair of sentences from the same section never seem to develop any point: 'The formal adoption of SI varied from country to country: when those countries that had not yet adopted the metric system did so, they adopted SI directly. There was no "standard" way in which countries where the metric system was in use migrated to using SI.'

• This section has been reworded. Martinvl (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• I revised it a little further, hopefully preserving the intent, because the sentence was too long for me. FishGF (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• I see my change has been undone so I really need to review that again. FishGF (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• The main problem I have with it now is that it sounds like ALL countries that hadn't metricated by 1960 then changed to SI - which of course they did not. I won't try to fix it again myself, but hope you can see my concern. FishGF (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Rephrased to read "... countries that had not adopted the metric system by 1960 and subsequently adopted SI did so directly as part of their metrication programs." Martinvl (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• OK. FishGF (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• The prose in the "United States" section needs serious attention. It has poor grammar, incomplete sentences, missing words, surplus words, missing punctuation, overly long, breathless, sentences and is generally in dire need of competent copy-editing.

• The text for this section has been revised. Martinvl (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• OK, this at least parses now. FishGF (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• The prose in the Writing unit symbols and the values of quantities section is not clear. It needs tightening and possibly putting into passive voice to make it clearer that it is in the rules that these things are specified. FishGF (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• The paragraph that refers to ISO and the IEC has been rewritten. Martinvl (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• That is OK, but the prose needs addressing. Something more along these lines:

The guidelines state that the names of units follow the grammatical rules associated with common nouns. In English and in French common nouns start with a lower-case letter, so to comply with the rules, unit names are written thus: newton, hertz, pascal, etc. Note that even if the unit is named after a person and the symbol for the unit begins with a capital letter, that the unit name would begin with a lower-case letter. Celsius can be written "degrees Celsius" as "degree" is the unit name. In German, however, all nouns start with capital letters, so the names of SI units should too. The guidelines rules state that the spelling of unit names is a matter for the guardians of the language concerned. The official British and American spellings for certain SI unit names differ – British English uses the spelling deca-, metre, and litre whereas American English uses the spelling deka-, meter, and liter, respectively.

Likewise, to comply with the guidelines, the plural forms of unit names follow the grammar of the language concerned. Following the normal rules of English grammar gives for exampe: "henries" as the plural of "henry". However, the units lux, hertz, and siemens have irregular plurals in that they remain the same in both their singular and plural form.

Following English language conventions, when unit names are combined to denote multiplication of the units concerned, they are separated with a hyphen or a space (e.g. newton-metre or newton metre). The plural of these is formed by converting the last unit name to the plural form (e.g. ten newton-metres).

FishGF (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• The biggest difference between your proposed text and the current text is the addition of qualifiers of the type "to comply with the guidelines". I disagree with this and propose that this be referred to a third party for arbitration. Martinvl (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• There are two differences: the voice and the qualifier you mention. The changes are relatively minor as you suggest, but I currently believe essential for the section to be passed as well-written. If you still disagree, please state your reasoning and I will take that into account and reconsider it, or feel free to ask for a second opinion - try the discussion or help tab on the Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations page. FishGF (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Rather than get side-tracked on this discussion, I plan to leave it as an unresolved issue while the reviewer completes his review. Martinvl (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• After 2 weeks on this, the proposer shows no inclination to do anything about improving this, let alone to bring it up to the standard I believe to be necessary for a good article. FishGF (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• The prose respects copyright laws?

As I don't know how to check for copyright issues, I will accept it in good-faith.

• In the prose the spelling and grammar are correct?

I've made a couple of minor grammar and spelling corrections, but it is generally OK.

• It complies with the manual of style guidelines for:

• Lead sections

(to do)

• Layout

Complies, as far as I understand it. FishGF (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Words to watch

(to do)

• Fiction incorporation

• Not applicable. FishGF (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• List incorporation

• I don't see any inappropriate lists. FishGF (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research?

• It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline?

It has a notes, references and further reading section. That complies well. FishGF (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines?

• A cursory tyre-kicking of the references reveals at least one, reference number 6, has some sort of syntax error and the reference number 1 is apparently no longer accessible. FishGF (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• These have now been corrected. All other citations are believed to be correct. Martinvl (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• 6 is good now, thanks - but for me, 1 ("Amtliche Maßeinheiten in Europa 1842") is still inaccessible on that web address. It says something along the lines that FOnline ceased trading at the end of 2011. FishGF (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Somehow my correction did not filter through. |I have now revisited that piece of text and the correction is in place.

• It works now. FishGF (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• It contains no original research?

(to do)

Broad in its coverage?

I'll comment on my observations as to where I think coverage needs broadening, or at least clarifying, section by section.

History section lead-in

• Why, during their Revolution, did the French decide to implement it - what was their rationale?

• This detail is unnecessary Martinvl (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Accepted, but it would add relevant and interesting breadth. FishGF (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Should explain, at first mention, that the 2 standards (metre and kg) were physical objects kept in Paris.

• Done - 2nd paragraph of the subsection "Uncoordinated development" Martinvl (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• That isn't the first mention though, this is. You could summarise it here, in the section intro. FishGF (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Too much detail - the lead-in is currently about 15% of the section. Its lead-in is to outline the main steps in the progression of the development of SI, not details of the units themseves. Martinvl (talk)

• It looks to me as though you have fixed my concern here, even if accidentally. FishGF (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• The second sentence about British scientists developing a coherent system later is inconsistent with what is written elsewhere - coherency is described in the main History of the metric system as being a founding principle.

• It is consistent within the current article - the article History of the metric system has been updated. Martinvl (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• It is consistent now. FishGF (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• What exactly are the "prototype kilogram and metre"?

• Last paragraph of the subsection "Metre Convention" has been modified to explain the term. Martinvl (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• That could be summarised here in the section intro too. FishGF (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Too much detail - the lead-in is currently about 15% of the section. Its lead-in is to outline the main steps in the progression of the development of SI, not details of the units themselves. Martinvl (talk)
• A picture has been added showing the US National Prototype, also a table has been added to the section "Metre Convention" clarifying certain phrases used throughout the article.
• I have amended the section "Metre Convention" where this term is now introduced. Martinvl (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• It was all but there - I inserted sufficient to define what they are. FishGF (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• The minimal definition has been removed, so this must revert back to being an issue. FishGF (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• On the contrary. If we disagree, then we seek a second opinion (See bottom of this page. Martinvl (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• I only passed it because I thought my slight modification was enough to fix it. As you reverted my modification, then we are back to where we were before I applied that modification. FishGF (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• The word "Prototype" has been wikilinked. There is also a note to explain the origin in this context. As per normal Wikipedia standards, that is sufficient. Martinvl (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• It is linked to an article about standards, that doesn't discuss "prototypes". Is a prototype a standard? If so, why not describe it as such in this article - it would be clear then. FishGF (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• The OED describes a "prototype" as "The first or primary type of a person or thing; an original on which something is modelled or from which it is derived; an exemplar, an archetype." With this description in the OED, there is no need for me to describe it further. Martinvl (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• However, as with "special", "prototype" is ambiguous in English, as a noun it has several different meanings, including: a model or mock-up built for testing and development, a thing that serves as an example and an ancestral form of a species. If we are to use that term, we need to introduce it first by explaining what it is, particularly for those readers who do not understand the franglais, and its nuances as used by the SI. Example: "The kilogram is defined as the mass of a specific cylinder of platinum-iridium alloy, manufactured for the purpose, and known as the international prototype of the kilogram." FishGF (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• An introduction of the term "prototype" is a good idea, but this article is the wrong place for it. An ideal article would be Standard (metrology). Martinvl (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• It is in this article that it is ambiguous, so this is where it is needed. Only a few words are required, something similar to my example above is all that is required to make it acceptably clear. FishGF (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have clarified matters by a reference to the Metre Convention (where the words "standard" and "prototype" appear in the same sentence) and two references to the OED (where each is defined). Martinvl (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• The first usage of the word prototype, in the lead-in to the history section, is still ambiguous. It just needs qualifying with which meaning is appropriate - there. I don't agree that because some other article may contain an explanation, and may be linked through some other term later in this article is good enough. A few words of explanation on first use is all we need. FishGF (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Everything in the lede should be described in the article itself. The word prototype certainly is. It is also described in the OED. There is no need to describe it any further. If you disagree, leave this as yet another item for resolution by a third party.

• As observed previously, the word prototype is ambiguously used here, the OED gives at least 2 plausible definitions for this context. A minimum number of extra words is all that is needed for clarity here. The introduction should be able to standalone, so must be unambiguous. Please fully explain your reluctance to qualify it on first use, rather than leave it dangling until later. FishGF (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Good article help to try to find a solution to this. FishGF (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• No rationale forthcoming for not broadening this by just a few words to make it comprehensible. FishGF (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• "The 1960 Standard defined fifth and sixth base units", the first were (presumably) the metre and the kilogram; what were the third and fourth?

• Done - 2nd paragraph of the section "History" Martinvl (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps the first four could be mentioned before the fifth and sixth, to put them into context. I would like to be able to appreciate the logical progression. FishGF (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Too much detail - the lead-in is currently about 15% of the section. Its lead-in is to outline the main steps in the progression of the development of SI, not details of the units themselves. Martinvl (talk)

• If we could just insert, in the appropriate context, when the ampere was added to metre, kilogram and second, we'd be there. This won't add many bytes. FishGF (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have added that. Martinvl (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• I can see that Giorgi saw the need for a 4th base unit in 1900, but still no mention of when the ampere was actually accepted or declared as the 4th base unit. FishGF (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• One of the underlying reasons for SI was to sort out the shambles surrounding electrical units. Between 1954 and 1960 there were debates as to which should be the 4th base unit and the consensus of opinion was that it should be the ampere (other suitable candidates were the volt or the coulomb). It was only in 1960 that the ampere became a base unit of the metric system. I have amended the lead-in to reflect this.

• At least we know it was current now. Was it the ampere, if not what was the unit? FishGF (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Need the names of the the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th base units when they are first mentioned.

• Done - 2nd paragraph of the section "History" Martinvl (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Please consider summarising them; quantity and unit name, in chronological order. FishGF (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Too much detail - the lead-in is currently about 15% of the section. Its lead-in is to outline the main steps in the progression of the development of SI, not details of the units themselves. Martinvl (talk)

• That's done now, as far as I can tell. FishGF (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

History/Uncoordinated development section

Detailed review

This section contains a mixture of French only, such as for the the Académie des science and the Assemblée nationale near the beginning, and English only such as for the National Assembly later on and the French National Archives later on. This needs to be made consistent and, According to WP:FRMOS, English should be used if possible for French terms and phrases. Section has been made consistent. It is a moot point as to whether most English-language writers use the French terms or the English approximations to these terms, complicated by the possibility that that UK writers and US writers might differ in their approach. In the absence of a definitive statement one way or the other, the article need to be consistent (which it is) and comprehensible (which it is) Martinvl (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC) It is more consistent now. FishGF (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC) The verbatim quote "father of modern chemistry" needs a source. Not necessarily - it need only be verifiable -if you do a Google search on the phrase (in quotation marks) "Father of Modern Chemistry" you will be spoilt for choice. If the reviewer is unhappy with this observation, may I suggest that (s)he perform the relevant Google search and identify the most appropriate citation for this article. Martinvl (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Quotations must be attributed to a reliable source - WP:BURDEN. FishGF (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC) This is not a quotation. It is an epithet, as explained on page 400 of The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed., 2010). An example given on that page is "Jenny Lind, 'the Sweedish Nightingale'". Jc3s5h (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Fair enough. FishGF (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Do we know whether Pierre-Simon Laplace and Adrien-Marie Legendre knew that they were using the principles that had been proposed by the English cleric or the concept proposed by the French cleric? Whether it is generally accepted that they did, or that they did not, it should be made clear as it currently sounds very vague, even veiled. The relevant sources do not make it clear. Martinvl (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC) OK, but consider making that clear in the prose too. FishGF (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC) What are the "other decimal units" that the National Assembly adopted in addition to the metre? These have been added Martinvl (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC) OK. FishGF (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Why supply the French translation for the law of 7 April 1795? To aid those who want to look up the exact text of the law. Martinvl (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC) OK. FishGF (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC) When were the "former terms gravet (correctly milligrave) and grave" adopted, amd why were they replaced by gramme and kilogramme? The full details can be found by following the relevant Wikilinks. Martinvl (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Why not summarise it here for the readers' convenience? FishGF (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC) This has been incorporated into the last sentence of the first paragraph of this section. Martinvl (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC) OK. FishGF (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Pierre Méchain and Jean-Baptiste Delambre are said to have completed a survey, but the survey has not been introduced or described at this point. The preceding text has been expanded to include details of the survey. Martinvl (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC) OK. FishGF (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Did Carl Friedrich Gauss consciously define a coherent system of units, or merely unwittingly happen to use one? What are you aiming at? The literature describes Gauss specifying a coherent system of three coherent units of length, mass and time in 1832. Others refined the concept in the 1850s, '60s and '70s. Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC) The point is moot now as Martinvl has erased mention of a coherent system in relation to Gauss, presumably after reading my review. FishGF (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC) James Clerk Maxwell and William Thomson are said to have "formulated the concept of a coherent system of units", yet coherency is said to have been one of the design goals of the original French metric system. Please explain in more detail? Martinvl (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC) I cannot find any statement within the article that an original goal of the French designers of the metric system was coherent units. Can you supply a quote from the article which we can search with? Jc3s5h (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC) At the time of review, the cited "main article" (History of the metric system) clearly itemised in its "Development of underlying principles" section, "Units that have different dimensions are related to each other in a coherent manner" as one of the 4 key features of the first practical implementation of the metric system. Martinvl has since reworded that item there, and without clearly explaining that there, or mentioning it here. FishGF (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC) The claim about "coherent" refered to the end of the 17th century. The source cited in that section, {{SIBrochure8th}}, p. 108 (should be p. 108–9) does not mention coherent units until Gauss supported them in 1832. I think it's reasonable to conclude the editor who originally used the word "coherent" meant it in a loose sense, and that the loose sense of that word should be avoided in this article, and in any article related to the metric system. Thus the rewording was wise. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC) It is less ambiguous now. FishGF (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Who successfully used the principle of coherence to define a number of units of measure based on the cgs system, and when? Five units have been named in the text and the name of the person who first proposed each of them is not readily available. In the interests of consistency and of brevity, I have not expanded any of them, but have left Wikilinks for all of them. Martinvl (talk) OK. FishGF (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC) The sentence "The law of 7 April 1795 (loi du 18 germinal) defined the terms gramme and kilogramme which ..." clearly gives the names of the names of the units of mass as "gramme" and "kilogramme". The next time they are mentioned, they are given as "gram" and "kilogram". When were the names changed again, and why? FishGF (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC) I was quoting the French law, so gave the French spelling and wrote the words "gramme" and "kilogramme" in italics to show that this was the French spelling. Martinvl (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC) OK. FishGF (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC) For consistency with "The law of 7 April 1795 (loi du 18 germinal) ...", shouldn't "On 10 December 1799 (a month after Napoleon's coup d'état), the law by which metric system ..." also be given its French designation? FishGF (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Do you have the details of the law readily to hand? Martinvl (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC) This has been updated by another editor. Martinvl (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC) OK. FishGF (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC) The paragraph starting "During the first half of the nineteenth century ..." is a little incongruous where it is, and the standardized prefixes haven't been discussed yet. Can it be moved to a more logical location do you think? FishGF (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC) This was part of the uncoordinated development and chronologically-speaking, is in the correct place. Martinvl (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Can we introduce prefixes before, or in, this paragraph then, so that readers can appreciate the message in the paragraph. FishGF (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Done - earlier in the section. Martinvl (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC) OK. FishGF (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

History/Metre convention section

Detailed review

Who was it that desired the international cooperation in metrology, that led to the signing of the metre convention? The twenty nations that attended the Metre Convention and the seventeen who signed the Convention are listed in the relevant article which has been linked by means of a "Wikilink". Martinvl (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Consider making that clear in the prose. FishGF (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Sentence has been reworked - it now starts "A French-inspired initiative..." OK. FishGF (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Are all the translations into French essential here? Yes - they explain the abbreviations used for the various bodies. Martinvl (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Fair point. FishGF (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC) What is the purpose of the CGPM meeting which is held every 4-6 years? See article Metre Convention which is Wikilinked via a "main" link. Excessive detail is not relevant here.Martinvl (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Consider making that clear in the prose. FishGF (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC) The section has been expanded. Martinvl (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC) That's good. FishGF (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC) What is the purpose of the CIPM annual meeting? See article Metre Convention which is Wikilinked via a "main" link. Excessive detail is not relevant here. Martinvl (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Consider making that clear in the prose, this is a key organ of the SI. FishGF (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC) The section has been expanded. Martinvl (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks. FishGF (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Why were new prototype metres and kilograms made, and why is the name of the company who made them mentioned in this instance? Who made the previous ones? Yes - to show the international nature of the metric system. The rewording of an earlier section shows that the original prototypes were made by the French. Martinvl (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC) OK, but I not sure that such detail about the manufacturer, but only for these objects and no other, is absolutely necessary, or even neutral. FishGF (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Was the 1921 extension of the convention to cover all physical units, or just metric ones? The word "units" has been replaced by the word "quantities", making the system of measurement irrelevant. Martinvl (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC) OK. FishGF (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

History/Towards SI section

Detailed review

What sort of "difficulties" were the attempts to produce a coherent set of electrical units beset by? Difficulties in respect of electrical units. The relevent section has been reworked to explain this. Martinvl (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC) OK. FishGF (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Inconsistency of case:- CGS (upper case) is used where previously cgs was (lower case) had been used. Done. Martinvl (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Well done. FishGF (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC) MKS is used, but has not been previously defined. Incorporated into the reworking of the first part of this section I couldn't see it, but have now done it myself. FishGF (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC) The verbatim quote "International system" (of MKS) needs a reference. Done. Martinvl (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC) OK. FishGF (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Were the "number of non-coherent units of measure" that were developed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries developed as part of the metric system? Their relationship has been explained in more detail. Martinvl (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC) OK. FishGF (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC) The verbatim quote "metric horsepower" needs a reference. Not necessarily - it need only be verifiable -if you do a Google search on the phrase (in quotation marks) "metric horsepower" you will be spoilt for choice. If the reviewer is unhappy with this observation, may I suggest that (s)he perform the relevant Google search and identify the most appropriate citation for this article. Martinvl (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC) This is not a quote; the quote marks were use to indicate a translation. I have changed the quote marks to parenthesis, which is the style suggested by Chicago Manual of Style to indicate a translation. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC) OK. FishGF (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Why is the fact that certain units incorporate standard gravity important enough to mention? Because they are non-coherent - see new text in next section. Martinvl (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC) You need really to make it clear where it is first mentioned - or the readers may not realise the significance. FishGF (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC) They are non-coherent in the SI-sense, but they are no non-coherent per-se. The Imperial and US customary measurement systems has a well-established coherent subsystem known as the British Gravitational System (BG System). Explaining coherency while avoiding the issues of the BG System will create an unwieldy article. Martinvl (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC) You're just confusing me now. That sentence lacks a raison d'être. Will you give it one, or remove it all so that we can close this one? Something like: "All these units incorporate standard gravity in their definitions, hence they are (or are not) whatever.". FishGF (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Sometimes you need to look beyond the sentence that is in front of you. Just as the average reader would have realized that "end of WWII" was a synonym for "late 1940's", the average reader will link this statement with the later one about gravitational units. If they don't, they will not have missed a major point. Martinvl (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC) I'll let it pass, but I don't understand your apparent reluctance to make the article better by qualifying the statement as I suggested. FishGF (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Did WWII influence the number of different systems of measurement were in use throughout the world? If not, why is it mentioned? If it was, in what way was it? The phrase "end of WWII" was used as a figure of speech instead of the "late 1940s". Ah, OK. FishGF (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC) By whom was it recognised that additional steps were needed to promote a worldwide measurement system? Amongst other the French Governemnt and the IUPAP. The next sentence implies as much. Martinvl (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC) You need to make it clearer at the first mention. FishGF (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC) This sentence has been removed and the subsequent sentence extended. Martinvl (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC) OK. FishGF (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

SI Brochure and conversion factors section

• No comments or questions for this section.

Units and prefixes section lead-in

Detailed review

Rather than "denoted as", the multipliers could be better described as being "used as" or "implemented as" prefixes. Done Martinvl (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC) OK. FishGF (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Is there such a thing as non-coherent derived units, as implied by the last sentence? Yes. For example, the volt is a coherent derived unit while the millivolt is a non-coherent derived unit. An example of the consequence of using non-coherent units is that conversion factors must be inserted into physical laws. Ohm's law would usually be written as E = I · R with the understanding that E, I, and R would be measured in coherent units. If the voltage were to be stated in millivolts while current and resistance were written in coherent units, the law would have to be rewritten E = 1000 · I · R. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks Jc, for the clear explanation. FishGF (talk) 12:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC) And the horsepower which is 550 foot pounds-force per second. Martinvl (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Is horsepower missing from the list of SI derived units or do you, Martinvl, misunderstand the meaning of SI? FishGF (talk) 12:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC) I don't understand the question - coherency is not restricted to SI. The poundal, for example, is a coherent derived unit. Martinvl (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC) This article is about SI, so I was asking whether horsepower was another of the non-SI units that is accepted by the SI. FishGF (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC) If that is what you meant, you hid the meaning by adding the phrase "... do you, Martinvl, misunderstand the meaning of SI?" Isn't the scope here limited to SI? FishGF (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Units and prefixes/Base units section

Detailed review
The "remaining three base units" need to be at least have been mentioned by name in the prose by now. They have been. Martinvl (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Good. FishGF (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Units and prefixes/Derived units section

• What is "special" about the "special names"?

• See the citations supplied. Martinvl (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• It really needs summarising in the article, this is their home. FishGF (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have amended the section "Metre Convention" where this term is now introduced. Martinvl (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• It is repeated, but not explained. Readers will want to know what the French mean by it equally. FishGF (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• The fact that a term which might be look strange in English is introduced to align it with the French is sufficient. If you are reasonably fluent in another language, you will understand the problem without explanation, but if you do not have a decent command of a second language, then an explanation will be very tediuous because you will first have to explain that there is not a one-to-one mapping between the vocabularies of different languages - look at the French equivalents of the English word "Standard" in the table. BTW, my French is minimal, but I am reasonable fluent in Afrikaans and I also read and speak Dutch and a little German, so the concept is not lost on me. Martinvl (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• It is not sufficient. It needs explanation. "Special" sounds like they are more important than the rest, is this really the case do you know? If it is, please make it clear in what way they are special. If it is another meaning of the word, then please clarify that. FishGF (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• This is copied out from the SI Brochure. Expanding it will be WP:SYN. That is why I included the note about being derived from the French. Martinvl (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• WP:SYN doesn't mean you can't paraphrase to expalin what is special, better still if you can find a third-party source that explains these terms using normal English. Currently the lack of explanation leaves the coverage lacking. FishGF (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• The word "special" comes from the French - something that I have made quite clear. You seem to have missed the point. To save me having to repeat everything, and you possibly missing the point again due to a misunderstanding, what foreign language do you read, write or speak? If I knew that, I might be able to explain things better by means of an example with which you are familiar. Martinvl (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I understand entirely that the original was written in French, but that is no excuse for unclear English here. "Special" is ambiguous in English, but presumably the French original is less so. In English "special", as an adjective, has several different meanings including: distinguished, better than others of its kind, reserved for a particular purpose, not usual and primary. I believe that if we are to use that term, we need to introduce it first by explaining what specifically is meant by it. Particularly for those readers who do not understand the franglais, and its nuances as used by the SI. Example: "Some derived units have been given what are known as special names to make them easier to express. For example the unit of electrical conductance - kg⋅m²⋅s⁻²⋅A⁻¹ - is known as the siemens." FishGF (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have reworded things and introduced the phrase "for the sake of convenience". Martinvl (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Why not go the extra distance and say for the convenience of what, "to make them easier to express", as supported by the SI Brochure quote? FishGF (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have found the original source of the wording "special names" - it is in a English-language paper dated 1874 written by, amongst others, Maxwell and Thomson. Citing this paper should be sufficient to settle the discussion. Martinvl (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• How do we know it is the original? And it doesn't clarify the reason. So we still need that doing - as per the SI brochure perhaps, where it tells us special names are used to make derived units easier to express. As little as that would do here. FishGF (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• If you are unable to accept things as they are, I will defer them to a third party for consideration. Martinvl (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• You haven't explained your reluctance to follow the lead of the SI brochure, or the suggestions of others on the talk page, and make the reason clearer. FishGF (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Good article help to try to find a solution to this. FishGF (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• No rationale provided for not broadening this by just a few words to make it comprehensible. FishGF (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• The "(such as those in SI)" as a qualifier to "coherent units" is redundant as this is all about SI, and potentially misleading as not all SI units are coherent.

• Done Martinvl (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• OK. FishGF (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Units and prefixes/Prefixes section

• No comments or questions for this section.

Units and prefixes/Non-SI units accepted for use with SI section

Detailed review

Who is it that has recognised that "some non-SI units still appear in the scientific, technical and commercial literature, and will continue to be used for many years to come"? This is in the citation supplied. Martinvl (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC) This needs to be qualified and not left so vague. FishGF (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Digging through the SI brochure, the list is controlled by the CIPM, so they are the body that has recognized .... Article has been amended to show this. Martinvl (talk) 11:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC) OK. FishGF (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Writing unit symbols and the values of quantities section lead-in

• No comments or questions for this section.

Writing unit symbols and the values of quantities/Unit names section

Detailed review

This section is about rules, but not necessarily universal practice, so the wording should reflect that to avoid confusion. The sentence "The CGPM rules state that the names of units follow the grammatical rules associated with common nouns ..." would be clearer with the word "must" or "should" between "units" and "follow". Similarly in "... they [must|should] start with a lowercase letter ...". And in "the names of units, just like all German nouns, [must|should] start with". And "... the plural forms of units [must|should] follow the grammar ...". And "... when unit names are combined to denote multiplication of the units concerned, they [must be|should be] are separated ...". And "... The plural [must be|should be] is formed ...". This applies to all the above bullet points - The SI brochure does not use the words "should" or "must", so neither does Wikipedia. Martinvl (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Can you make it clearer in the intro to this section then, that they are recommendations or as appropriate. As it is, they sound like false assertions. FishGF (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC) To do so would be WP:SYN. Martinvl (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC) The introduction to this section has the sentence "SI brochure has specific rules in respect of writing them". The rest of the section describes what the rules state. The words "should" and "must" describe how one uses the rules, not what the rules state, so requiring that the article clarify "should" or "must" is to introduce one's own POV - the brochure itself is silent about the actual use of the rules. How and when the rules are used is well outside the scope of the article. Martinvl (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC) "Should" and "must" are loaded words. In scholarly writing or journalism in many parts of the world, one can write what one wants without government interference. But when using weights and measures in commerce, it's a different story. If you don't write information about the measurements of goods offered for sale in commerce correctly, the weights and measures inspectors may decend upon you, seize the goods, seize your non-compliant measuring devices, and fine you. In the USA the Congress has authorized the Secretary of Commerce to issue rules concerning SI measurements, and the Secretary of Commerce has designated the NIST English translation of the brocure, Special Publication 330 (together with a guide, Special Publication 811) as the official rules for the United States. I think it would be unwise to make any "adjustments" to the strength of the rules by inserting "should" or "must"; that's a job for the courts, not Wikipedia. Of course, if we could find a secondary source that describes the findings of courts around the world about how exactly the rules must be interpreted, that would be great, but I don't know of any such source. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Rather than try to explain my concerns about the wording here, here is a re-write of this section to try to show what I mean. See what you think: Attempt to explain they are rules rather than assertions of how it should be written The CGPM rules state that the names of units follow the grammatical rules associated with common nouns. In English and in French common nouns start with a lowercase letter, so complying with the rules, unit names are written thus: newton, hertz, pascal, etc. Note that even if the unit is named after a person, and the symbol for the unit begins with a capital letter, the unit name should begin with a lowercase letter. Celsius can be written "degrees Celsius", since "degree" is the unit name. In German, however, all nouns start with capital letters, so the names of SI units should too. The CGPM rules state that the spelling of unit names is a matter for the guardians of the language concerned. The official British and American spellings for certain SI unit names differ – British English uses the spelling deca-, metre, and litre whereas American English uses the spelling deka-, meter, and liter, respectively. Likewise, to comply with the CGPM rules, the plural forms of unit names follow the grammar of the language concerned. Following the normal rules of English grammar gives for exampe: "henries" as the plural of "henry". However, the units lux, hertz, and siemens have irregular plurals in that they remain the same in both their singular and plural form. Following English language conventions, when unit names are combined to denote multiplication of the units concerned, they are separated with a hyphen or a space (e.g. newton-metre or newton metre). The plural of these is formed by converting the last unit name to the plural form (e.g. ten newton-metres). FishGF (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC) I have reread the SI brochure. Although the CGPM first published the rules, the rules are now maintained by a committee consisting of representatives of about a dozen different international organisations under the auspices of the CIPM. I have updated the introduction to clarify this. I appreciate the work that you did in putting together the example, but the lead-in to the section makes the origin of the rules quite clear. There is no need to restate the origin in almost every paragraph - anyway, whose rules are they? Martinvl (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC) I suppose it covers it broadly enough, it just isn't written clearly enough. FishGF (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Writing unit symbols and the values of quantities/Chinese and Japanese section

Detailed review

The last sentence of the section: 'The symbols for the metric units are internationally recognised Latin and Greek characters (e.g. "Ω" and "μ")', doesn't seem to belong here - it isn't specifically Japanes or Chinese related. The symbols used in Chinese and Japanese are the Latin or Greek symbols - see the picture to the right of the text. Martinvl (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Explain that then, as requested above. FishGF (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC) The sentence in question has been worked into the first sentence. Martinvl (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Better. FishGF (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Writing unit symbols and the values of quantities/Unit symbols and the values of quantities section lead-in

Detailed review

Can either the main section or this sub-section be renamed (preferably make the main section title more concise) to avoid having duplicate names here? FishGF (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Done Martinvl (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Again rules, so " ... the writing of unit symbols and the values of quantities [must be|should be] is consistent ...". The SI brochure does not use the words "should" or "must", so neither does Wikipedia. Martinvl (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Explain that then, as requested above. FishGF (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Please see comments at "Writing unit symbols and the values of quantities/Unit names section". Martinvl (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC) OK, as for that other section. The prose leaves a lot to be desired. FishGF (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Writing unit symbols and the values of quantities/Unit symbols and the values of quantities/General rules section

Detailed review

No comment here other than that "must" or "should" should be used where necessary as explained above. The SI brochure does not use the words "should" or "must", so neither does Wikipedia. Martinvl (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Explain that then, as requested above. FishGF (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Please see comments at "Writing unit symbols and the values of quantities/Unit names section". Martinvl (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, as for the other section. FishGF (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Writing unit symbols and the values of quantities/Unit symbols and the values of quantities/Printing SI symbols

• No comments or questions for this section.

Realisation of units section

Detailed review

Why does this section use the French translation of "practical realisation" when there is the English equivalent? When the 8th edition of the SI brochure was published, the exact definition of a mise en practique had not been fully described. AS a result the brochure only used the French term. This has now ben explained in the article. Martinvl (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC) OK. FishGF (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Does the speculation about what might be in future incarnations of the descriptions for how to achieve a practical realisation of a base unit belong in this article which is generally about the current situation? Yes - it is a good example of mise en practique in practice. Martinvl (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Perhaps you could put it in those terms then. FishGF (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Worldwide adoption of SI section lead-in

Detailed review

The last paragraph (the one starting "In 1960, the world's largest economy ...") does not address the subject of this section at all, or indeed the subject of the article; which is the SI, not just the metric system in general. The previous paragraph states that countries that metricated after 1960 went straight into SI - making SI and metrication synonymous. Martinvl (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC) After 1960, yes, that is my point; all those who already had metricated by 1960, had metricated before SI was introduced, and are thus out of scope. No? FishGF (talk) Text has been modified to highlight that there were two main conversion processes - Imperial/Customary => SI (UK & US), CGS = > SI (France, Germany and India). Martinvl (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC) OK, I see where you are coming from now, in terms of relevancy. The wording still needs fixing though - see the "Well written?" further up. FishGF (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Worldwide adoption of SI/United Kingdom and the former Empire section

Detailed review

What was false starting in this sentence: "In 1965, after numerous false starts the then Federation of British Industry informed the British Government that its members favoured the adoption of the metric system.". Was it the FBI? Is this a weak joke? Martinvl (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC) I am not joking, I am taking this review very seriously; did the Federation of British Industry (FBI) make several abortive attempts to inform the government about their members' wishes - or what else was it that failed to start numerous times? [[User:FishGF|FishGF] (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC) The use of the abbreviation "FBI" without indicating that you meant "Federation of British Industry" rather than "Federal Bureau of Investigation" hid the meaning of your question. I have now reworded the sentence and added another to show that the false starts had dated back almost a century. Martinvl (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC) OK (I'm sorry FBI, in the context here, didn't click with you). FishGF (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC) The meaning of the following is unclear: "... the breakdown of voluntary metrication ...". Does it mean businesses were reverting to imperial, or that some businesses were not volunteering to metricate, or what? Both - this is clarified in the new citation - giving a full description here would result in too much detail. Martinvl (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC) OK. FishGF (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Worldwide adoption of SI/United States section

• (will come back to this when the prose is more comprehensible)

• Introductory sentences have been revised. Martinvl (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• The prose is now readable. FishGF (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Can we have a brief summary of what the "U.S. Metric Study", that Congress authorised was please, and how many subsequent volumes there were? FishGF (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Expanded. The number of volumes is unimportant, but the message delivered is and that has been included.

• We need a nutshell picture of what is was intended to be, without having to read it all. And, by mentioning the volume number, it suggests there were more than one - why not say "the first of x volumes, that were produced over the next y years"? FishGF (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know how many volumes there were, nor do I care. The first important part is the message that they delivered, and that is in the article. The second important part is how Congress reacted to that message. That is also in the article. Martinvl (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• The first important part is surely why it was asked for and what was it expected to achieve - what was the remit? FishGF (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Martinvl (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• OK, that helps. FishGF (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• What was the Metric Conversion Act of 1975? FishGF (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Text has been expanded and a citation added. Martinvl (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• OK. FishGF (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• That ... caused the country to look to short-term costs rather than long-term gains is described, but what this meant (how were short-term costs reduced and what long-term gains were sacrificed?) is not revealed at all. FishGF (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• This has been expanded slightly. Martinvl (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• It still leaves the questions dangling - what short-term costs and what long-term gains? The reader will want to know. FishGF (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• The authors of the source document did not see fit to specify - to research it would go well beyond the scope of this article. Martinvl (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• As it seems to be an unqualified opinion of the author of the cited book, then if you prefix the paragraph appropriately, readers will understand that it isn't an assertion of fact, and won't therefore expect hard evidence. Something like: "Alder offers the opinion that Americans would rather ..." FishGF (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have reworded the section slightly. However, if you look at WP:YESPOV, you will see the advice "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested." Alder’s statements are not (at any rate in my opinion) contested or controversial, so unless you can provide an authoritative statement that take an opposite view to Alder, there is no need to state that this is his view. May I suggest the following background reading about Alder’s qualifications and reliability: his biography, this book and this book. Martinvl (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't doubted it to be true, but I would expect qualification in a good article. If the facts aren't available, then why not quell the readers' natural curiosity by prefixing the statement as I suggest - or expalin your reasoning for leaving it unsaid? FishGF (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• WP:Good article criteria requires that an artcile "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". In my view, you are requesting unneccessary detail. Martinvl (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Unconvincing excuse. FishGF (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• What "efforts" were made during the Ford and Carter era to force metrication? FishGF (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Does it matter? The important part is the public response. Also, Alder does not describe the efforts. Martinvl (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Don't you think that the curiosity of readers will have been aroused. Add a "such as ..." to satisfy their likely interest. FishGF (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• The source did not catalogue the efforts, and in any case, a "laundry list" in a section that is already too large would be out of place. Martinvl (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• It would probably be better to remove it then, if you cannot supply the detail required to make it encyclopaedic. FishGF (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree. If you are not happy with that statement, then leave it as a matter to be resolved later.Martinvl (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• If it's another Alder opinion, make it clear. Is the word "efforts" used in the source, or is that paraphrasing? If the later then expand, otherwise add it as a quote from Alder. Help the readers to know the facts here. FishGF (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• See earlier comments about Alder's reliability and lack of conflicting views. Martinvl (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Again, it is to pacify readers' natural curiosity. A good article should try to qualify such assertions. FishGF (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• WP:Good article criteria requires that an artcile "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". In my view, you are requesting unneccessary detail. Martinvl (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Give a flavour at least, or leave it out, but don't leave the obvious questions unanswered. FishGF (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• No action or reasoning forthcoming. FishGF (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Presumably the EU directive only applied to goods imported into EU member countries for certain purposes and not to what happened in the U.S.? FishGF (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Martinvl (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• OK. FishGF (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• What does this sentence mean: "As of February 2013 the use of metric (and therefore SI) units in the United States does not follow any pattern."? FishGF (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• It is explained in the rest of the paragraph. Martinvl (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Obviously not well enough - I see nothing explaining patterns. FishGF (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• No apparent commitment to fix this. FishGF (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Worldwide adoption of SI/European Union section

Detailed review

"GCPM"? Is that a typo of "CGPM"? Yes, done. Martinvl (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC) OK. FishGF (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Does the following sentence mean colloquial units: if so, what are they? Or does it mean colloquial names for units? "The directive was silent in respect of the use of colloquial units such as ...". This has been clarified. Martinvl (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC) It still sounds wrong. "Colloquial" is a language thing; it is the names, not the units themselves, that are colloquial. FishGF (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC) This sentence has been reworked. Martinvl (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC) It's clear what you mean now; that giving 500g a special name, in effect defines it as a unit in its own right - a unit that is not officially recognised as one. FishGF (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC) The following overly long sentence doesn't make sense to me: "When the directive was revisited during 1977, some of the older units that were being reviewed were retained as being permitted where they were still in use, but others were phased out while the directive was aligned with SI.". This sentence has been reworked. Martinvl (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Got it! It's still a bit convoluted though. FishGF (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Worldwide adoption of SI/India section

• 

• The first paragraph is off-topic, describing metrication prior to the advent of SI (SI, not metrication, is the topic of this article).
• The second paragraph is also off-topic, still describing the Indian metrication process.
• The third paragraph, describing nothing but the Indian numbering system is also off-topic.
• The second paragraph talks about artefacts (in the plural) in 2007, whereas the first suggests that by 1960, there was only one artefact still in use (for the kilogram).

• Whole subsection - This section shows that while India has more or less (my wording) adopted the metric system, they have not really adopted SI, but due to WP:SYN stops short of saying so. As reviewer you are requested to ensure that I have been neutral in my selection of citations. Martinvl (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• It's all off-topic, so I believe it should be removed. FishGF (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• On the contrary - it brings out the fact that the conversion from CGS to SI in India has not been a success (to harp only on the success stories would be a violation of WP:POV). Moreover, the comments about the crore and the lakh show that there are cultural problems that we in the West have not foreseen. Martinvl (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• It doesn't currently read that way, or give that message though. If that is the intention, then you'll need to summarise it in those terms. FishGF (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• I am sure that most readers will see it differently to you - maybe this too can be left for input from a third party. Moreover, this section gives a more balanced view of SI - it has not been accepted "as is" worldwide and some of its concepts have a Western European bias - an astute reader will notice that the crore and the lahk do not map onto the SI prefix system as easily as do the terms "thousand" and "million. Martinvl (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Martinvl (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• We need to be explicit, not cryptic. Please feel free to seek a second opinion. FishGF (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• No apparent action or commitment to fix. FishGF (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

"New SI" section

Detailed review

The first paragraph mentions that the metre had been redefined in 1960, but that redefinition hasn't been discussed. The 1960 redefinition has been introduced into the section "Base units". Martinvl (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Lost in the big table, and using different terminology ("interim" rather than "redefined")? FishGF (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Wikilink provided to article that describes this in more detail. Also "interim" is an adjective that describes the result of the verb "redefined" - since both mention 1960 in their respective contexts, I do not think that any readers will have problems linking the two. Martinvl (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC) It's OK now. FishGF (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC) The first paragraph also mentions the 1996–1998 recalibration, which has not been discussed either. The section "Metre Convention" has been extended to introduce the concept of periodic recalibrations. The 1996-1998 was but one of these exercises. Martinvl (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Can we call it "the 1996–1998 periodic recalibration" then, to give the reader a sporting chance of keeping up? FishGF (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC). I have expanded the sentence to take the comments into account. Martinvl (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC) It's clearer now, thanks. FishGF (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Initial conclusion

a. As far as I know, it does touch most of the main aspects of the topic. However it does not address all of them in anything like the detail required to give readers even a cursory understanding of them. It is also confused in places, contradicting other articles and even itself. One section, that on the United States, is so poorly written I felt unable to review it.

b. It does not stay focused on the topic - it frequently goes into unnecessary and tangential detail. FishGF (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutral?

• I believe that there is undue weight given to the significance of the contributions made to the development of SI by Thomson and Maxwell and the role of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Browsing some of the references, and books and book extracts on-line and in my library, I do not see that emphasis mirrored.

In the article we see the British scientists and the Association given second place in the history of SI, behind the introduction of the metric system itself during the French Revolution, and credited with having laid the foundations for the introduction of a coherent system. The literature generally portrays Gauss as the originator of coherency, with his adding time (the second) as a third base unit, and also mentioning Weber as having contributed to that theme before the British scientists got involved and expanded it further. See this history summary on the NIST website.

Maxwell is mentioned four times throughout the article: as first introducing the concept of a coherent system and is credited (twice) as being "one of the most influential figures in the theoretical development of the metric system". Thomson is mentioned three times in similar terms, including being "one of the most influential figures in the theoretical development of the metric system". Large individual portraits of Maxwell and Thomson take up much of the space in the "Towards SI" section.

On the other hand, Gauss is mentioned just once, being credited only as having "implicitly defined the second as a base unit". The Commons image of Gauss (File:Carl Friedrich Gauss.jpg) is not used.

Weber isn't mentioned at all, or his Commons image (File:Wilhelm Eduard Weber II.jpg) used.

Although Giorgi is mentioned 3 times in relation to his breakthrough work in the electrical domain, he is never acknowledged as being "influential" or similar.

FishGF (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• You wrote "Browsing some of the references, and books and book extracts on-line and in my library, I do not see that emphasis mirrored.". Apart from the NIST paper, what other sources have you used? They might well help me in expanding Gauss' work. Martinvl (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The NIST citation itself contributes nothing new to the argument - if you look at the paper you will see that it was reproduced by courtesy of the BIPM. If you look at the BIPM citation that I gave in respect of Gauss' work, you will see that this is exactly the same citation that you "found" on the NIST page. In view of this, I make a stronger request for title of other works that you have consulted so that I can address your comments. BTW, in the "short history" two paragraphs were devoted to the work of the BAAS, of which Maxwell and Thomson were leading lights. Also, do you have any specific citations regarding Weber's work? Martinvl (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have found details of Gauss' work and added it to the article along with a picture of Gauss. Martinvl (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a good start. Can you also, to help reduce further the disproportionate amount of space devoted to the joint contribution of Maxwell and Thomson, make both their pictures smaller, and put them side-by-side in a single frame, sharing a common caption, rather than duplicating the captions as now - and at the same time also remove the peacock terms from the caption. FishGF (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have reduced the size of the pictures of Maxwell and Thomson, shortened the wording, but for aesthetic reasons I Am reluctant to put them in a gallery - portraits in a gallery should both be looking in the same direction, the two pictures in the article are "looking" at each other and at the text. To understand what I mean, look for portraits in a newspaper - if the story is alongside the picture (as opposed to below it), the person will be "looking" at the text. Check it out! Martinvl (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Couldn't you mirror one, if that's the only problem? That's what newspapers do. FishGF (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Only hack-sheets do that, not quality newspapers.Martinvl (talk) 06:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Seems to have been done, but with no edit summary or comment here to say so. FishGF (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Now that we have more coverage of the contributions of Gauss and Weber, perhaps we could now consider introducing Gauss, Weber and Giorgi with details of their nationality and background, as Maxwell and Thomson are dealt with.

• In the 1830s, German mathematician and physicist Carl Friedrich Gauss laid the foundations for a coherent system ...
• ... until 1900 when Italain electrical engineer Giovanni Giorgi identified the need to define one electrical quantity ...
• ... assisted by German physicist Wilhelm Weber implicitly defined the second as a base unit

FishGF (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Does this change satisfy the nationality issue? Martinvl (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• No it doesn't. If nationalities are important, then all nationalities should be given. Even the fact that it was first developed and implemented in France is not clear, but should be. I don't think this will be controversial, so have clarified that in the text. We need to identify all contributors with appropriate weight and balance, and not emphasise just the British/English influences. FishGF (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Since we are going to ask for a second opinion anyway, I propose asking for a second opinion on this matter too. Martinvl (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Are you going to seek a second opinion then? If so, when, this is dragging on a bit now. FishGF (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• No apparent commitment here. FishGF (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Also remove the still existing peacock terms ("one of the leading figures in the ...") from Maxwell's and Thomsons' pictures and just state their specific contribution in similar terms to those used for Gauss, and add the Commons picture of Weber. This should help remove the current unwarranted British bias. FishGF (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• WP:PEACOCK states "Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information." The following appears in the given citation "These applications in the field of electricity and magnetism were further developed in the 1860s under the active leadership of Maxwell and Thomson through the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS, now BA)." The term "active leadership" in the citation justifies the so-called peacock wording. Martinvl (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• It is still peacock. The reference does not say that either Maxwell or Thomson were "leading figures in the theoretical development of the metric system". What that source does say is that developments were made under their leadership. "Leading", in this context, means most important figure in the theoretical development of the metric system, whereas "leader" in the reference means the person in charge of the team developing one aspect (amongst many) of the system. FishGF (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• The page WP:Peacock states "Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information". I have summarized their activities with the word "prominent" and given a set of citations to justify the use of this word. This removes the charge of a "peacock term" (unless you can give a better summary). Martinvl (talk) 06:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• As you have now removed the unattributed peacock term "leading figure" there is now no problem. FishGF (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• I see that my insertion of clarification of where the metric system was developed and first implemented (France) has been removed. Currently the only metric system developments given a national identity in the History section are those made by the British. The work done in France is not credited thus, and neither Gauss or Weber (German) are credited with their nationality nor Giorgi (Italian) with his. This is not equal or neutral treatment, so not acceptable. FishGF (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Please read this article. The BAAS involved many people, not just Maxwell and Thomson, but also James Prescott Joule, Fleeming Jenkin, Carl Wilhelm Siemens, Frederick Bramwell and George Johnstone Stoney (Contributors to report on page 222 of this journal). You expect me to list them all? do you expect me editorialise the individual contribution of each? Martinvl (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Please read my concern about attribution of national identities above: your last response is an answer to a question that I did not ask. FishGF (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Since we are going to ask for a second opinion anyway, I propose asking for a second opinion on this matter too. Martinvl (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Will you organise this now then please, so we can move on. FishGF (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• No apparent commitment. FishGF (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Stable?

• There are no current stability concerns. FishGF (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images?

Detailed review

Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content I'm not a copyright expert, but if I accept in good-faith the declarations and assertions made on the image file pages it would appear that all images are acceptable, with the possible exception of: File:Metrication-uk-logo.png - used in the United Kingdom and the former Empire section - which appears to be licensed only for use in the Metrication in the United Kingdom article Licence has been updated to include this article. Is that all it takes - wow! FishGF (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC) File:Metricanmc.png - used in the United States section - which appears to be licensed only for use in the Metrication in the United States article Licence has been updated to include this article. Such licences seem pointless, if it's that easy to chance them when questioned. FishGF (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Images are relevant to the topic On the whole there is a good and varied selection of relevant and topical images. However, I question the suitability of the following: File:Lord Kelvin photograph.jpg and File:James Clerk Maxwell.png - both used in the Towards SI section - they are the only two portraits in the entire article, and as they are both of Victorian British gentlemen who worked together through the British Association for the Advancement of Science, I think they are attracting disproportionate attention to an item in the distant history of SI, and not adding appropriate value to this article about a phenomenon that did not exist until 1960. FishGF (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC) They developed the principal of coherence, a principal that is fundamental to SI. The only other individual who warrants mention in respect of SI is Giovanni Giorgi, but there are no pictures of him in Wikipedia Commons. The picture of him here is free of copyright in Italy, but not in the United States. Do you have any other suggestions? Martinvl (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC) It might be appropriate to read the historic summary of SI as given by the CGPM - here, or in context in the brochure - the French version (which is the official version) is on pages 18-20 and the English translation is on pages 108-110. Martinvl (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC) OK, I accept that the images are relevant to the topic - so they should pass in this section. However, I think there is possibly an issue of neutrality or due weight. I'll consider this further in that section of this review. FishGF (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC) File:981ms2.png - used in the General rules section - I cannot see what this image of a textual measure is adding at all, or the relevance of gravity here. FishGF (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC) The relevance here is the text layout - there is a space between "9.81" and "m/s2", "m" and "s" are both lower-case letters etc. Martinvl (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Being an image of nothing but typed text, the image does not add to what is possible with prose alone. Please consider dropping this one - and expand the prose if you think it would benefit from extra clarification. FishGF (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC) A picture is worth a thousand word. The caption captures most of the important points of writing SI measurements. Martinvl (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC) But only if there is something in the picture other than alpha-numeric characters and punctuation - surely! I searched around for support of my gut-feeling on this, and came across this. They are good points, don't you think? FishGF (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC) I think that you mis-understood the MOS section. The information in my image is not the text, but the layout, so the section that you found does not apply. My understanding of MOS in this case is that if you are writing "Yes" in green and "No" in red and the "Yes" or "No" text is the important part, then you should text rather than images. Martinvl (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC) I guess I was arguing spirit rather than letter. If you think you've found a loophole in the letter, and are determined to defend it in those terms, then I won't waste any more time over it. FishGF (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Images have suitable captions Most of the images have suitable captions. The exceptions I believe are: File:Lord Kelvin photograph.jpg and File:James Clerk Maxwell.png - both used in the Towards SI section - both captions seem to be disproportionately singling out these Victorian gentlemen for promotion, above all other contributors to the development of metric systems, and using unattributed praise/flattery. FishGF (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC) See above Martinvl (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC) OK, as above, with the neutrality/due weight caveat. FishGF (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC) File:981ms2.png - used in the General rules section - neither the image nor the caption add anything which cannot be written in the main prose. FishGF (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC) See above. Martinvl (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC) OK, the caption does describe the "image", but the image isn't really necessary - see above. FishGF (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC) File:2kg with creditcard.JPG and File:2kg auditmark.JPG - used in the Worldwide adoption of SI section - the caption of the descibes "the" 2 kg weight without qualifying which, and seems overly verbose and has unbalanced brackets. It could more concisely "A 2 kg weight (credit card shown for scale)". The big caption across both does not relate to anything in the article - why is assayer mentioned with no context - and mentions irrelevant trivia such as year of manufacture. FishGF (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC) These images link with the text that describes the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML). If you look at the assayer's stamp you will see a "79", hence the note that the weight was manufactured in 1979. (I actually bought it in either 1979 or 1980). Martinvl (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC) I probably won't be the last person to miss that sublety - would you mind describing it in more detail - if you think it worth the trouble to keep it. FishGF (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Reworded. Martinvl (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC) They are overly verbose, but I give up. FishGF (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC) File:Half Bananas for Sale at Market - Trivandrum - Kerala - India.jpg - used in the European Union section - the caption reads like unconvincing speculation. FishGF (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC) The image was moved upwards so that it straddles the subsections on the EU and on India. If I aligned it with the start of the India subsection, it would have created an ugly white space at the bottom of the subsection. I have experimented with the Wikipedia window being a floating window and I adjusted it between 1920 pixels and 960 pixels to ensure that at least part of it is always within the India article. Martinvl (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC) It wasn't so much the wrong position, but the conjecture in the caption that I was worried about. FishGF (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC) I found a citation clarifing that metric hexagonal weights are legal in India - it is highly probable that the trader is using metric weights - I see no problem with the wording which is asking you to use your judgement. Martinvl (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC) You've obviously convinced yourself - who am I to argue! FishGF (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Request by proposer

Please replace the checkmarks at the start of a sub-thread with . Byt all means place a in the thread. In this way we can see which comments are made before and which are made after the assessment. For example.

• Observation 1

• Response 1

• Reassessment 1

• Response 2

The above sequence shows that the item is still open, and that the sequence of events is clear. Martinvl (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Done; I hope that helps. FishGF (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Requests by reviewer

Because of the large number of outstanding issues that I have raised in the review sections that I have already visited, I am reluctant to tackle the outstanding review sections (verifiable with no original research, and neutrality) until, at least, the majority of the issues so far have been satisfactorily resolved. The reason is that the continuous and quite substantial rework currently going on in the article means that it would be quite likely that those two main outstanding sections would need to be done again after all the rework is finished. The best thing would be to polish-off as much as possible of the outstanding work before I fully try to tackle those two. FishGF (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Would those making modifications to the article in response to this review please supply a clear edit summary to help me follow developments more efficiently. Look at this, there have been something like 187 revisions by 27 different users since I started this review. Please make it easier for me if you can. FishGF (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Review by Sphilbrick

Reviewer: SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• The main image illustrates the interdependency of the seven units. In the New SI section there is a graphic illustrating the relationships between the units. The arrows are different, but I see nothing in the text discussing this. For example, in the first, K (temperature) stands alone, suggesting no interdependency with other units, but in the second, it is linked to three of the units, suggesting a relationship. I'm not challenging the facts, but a reader wonder what the difference is between dependency and relationship, and why these are different. Given that these concepts are illustrated by two images, one of which is the main image, it seems reasonable to expect some discussion of the concepts. (I note that both images are present in SI base unit with different captions. In this article, the second caption refers to the arrows as indicating dependence, so is dependence the same as relationship? And if so, what's the difference between the two images (other than the obvious difference that the second image also identifies the units)?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have extended the captions of both diagrams. Are you happy with these extensions or do they need more work? Martinvl (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess I am OK. What I missed is that the first is portraying the current system, and the second, a proposed system. I focused on the differences, and wondered if it was language, but it is more fundamental.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)