![]() | Robert Hooke has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences 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. Review: February 17, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | Robert Hooke received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 3, 2017. |
![]() | A fact from Robert Hooke appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 27 March 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The article is a bit confused as it stands. In one place in the Oxford section, it says [with citation] that H secured a chorister's place at CC, but elsewhere in that section we have Wadham was then under the guidance of
John Wilkins
. So what? The DNB entry for H doesn't even mention Wadham. Delete?
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
10:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
The caption for the main image mentions a argument opposing the identification of the portrait of Hooke. However, the specifics of that argument aren’t mentioned. I unfortunately can’t access the article myself, but to anyone who can, could they write about them in the likeness section? Thank you. Leevine65 ( talk) 19:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Portrait of Robert Hooke
and immediately got access to both Griffing's original conjecture and Whittaker's rebuttal.Comments on Dr Whittaker's letter and the article
, which is Griffing's counterargument. --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
23:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)There is a possible typo under the section "Personality and disputes" , in the second paragraph, last sentence.
The whole paragraph reads as follows, with emphasis on the potential typo:
"On the other hand, as the Royal Society's curator of experiments, Hooke was tasked to demonstrate many ideas sent in to the Society. Some evidence suggests that Hooke subsequently assumed credit for some of these ideas.[citation needed] Yet in this period of immense scientific progress, numerous ideas were developed in multiple places roughly simultaneously. Immensely busy, Hook let many of his own ideas remain undeveloped, although others he patented." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazi109 ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, I've removed the parts that said "citation needed" since 2020, and tried to move the orphaned parts of that section to somewhere else in the article. Please feel free to revert if you disagree with the changes. Red Fiona ( talk) 20:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Reputedly, Hooke was a staunch friend and ally. In his early training at Wadham College, he was among ardent royalists, particularly Christopher Wren. Yet allegedly, Hooke was also proud, and often annoyed by intellectual competitors. Hooke contended that Oldenburg had leaked details of Hooke's watch escapement. Otherwise, Hooke guarded his own ideas and used ciphers. The Royal Society's Hooke papers, rediscovered in 2006, [1] (after disappearing when Newton took over) may open up a modern reassessment. In the 20th century, researchers Robert Gunther and Margaret 'Espinasse revived Hooke's legacy, establishing Hooke among the most influential scientists of his time. [2] [3]
Hooke's collaboration with Christopher Wren also included St Paul's Cathedral, whose dome uses a method of construction conceived by Hooke.because, if it refers to drawing a perfect circle for the base, it is directly contradicted by Inwood (p399). -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 12:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Hooke also participated in the design of the Pepys Library, which held the manuscripts of the diary of Samuel Pepys, the most frequently cited eyewitness account of the Great Fire of London. [4]as impossible because Pepys and Hooke both died in 1703. I assume that Hyam (1982) is being cited for " the most frequently cited eyewitness account", not the architecture. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 17:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Two important citations appear to fail verification, so would someone please check
Henry Sully, writing in Paris in 1737, described the anchor escapement as "an admirable invention of which Dr. Hooke, formerly professor of geometry in Gresham College at London, was the inventor". [5] failed verification William Derham also attributes it to Hooke. [6] failed verification
as I can't believe they were added to the article in bad faith. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 21:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I should make clear that the original text of the citations did not have URLs. These are the results of my searches and may be incorrect. Also, Derham says that Hooke claimed it, he does not say it is true, afaics. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 21:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Is this WP:original research
Several commentators who? have followed Hooke in calling Newton's spiral path mistaken, or even a 'blunder', but there are also the facts: (a) that Hooke left out of account Newton's specific statement that the motion resulted from dropping "a heavy body suspended in the Air" (i.e. a resisting medium), see Newton to Hooke, 28 November 1679, document #236, [7] and compare Hooke's report to the Royal Society on 11 December 1679 where Hooke reported the matter "supposing no resistance", see D Gjertsen, 'Newton Handbook' (1986), at p. 259; and (b) that Hooke's reply of 9 December 1679 to Newton considered the cases of motion both with and without air resistance: The resistance-free path was what Hooke called an 'elliptueid'; but a line in Hooke's diagram showing the path for his case of air resistance was, though elongated, also another inward-spiralling path ending at the Earth's centre: Hooke wrote "where the Medium ... has a power of impeding and destroying its motion the curve in which it would move would be some what like the Line AIKLMNOP &c and ... would terminate in the center C". Hooke's path including air resistance was therefore to this extent like Newton's. [8] The diagrams are also online: see Wilson, p. 241, showing Newton's 1679 diagram with spiral, [9] and extract of his letter; also Wilson, p. 242 showing Hooke's 1679 diagram including two paths, closed curve and spiral. [10] Newton pointed out in his later correspondence over the priority claim that the descent in a spiral "is true in a resisting medium such as our air is". [11]
I can't find any commentators that use the term "blunder"? -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 20:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I can't find any source for this assertion: His explanation of this phenomenon
[capilliary action] was subsequently published in Micrography Observ. issue 6, in which he also explored the nature of "the fluidity of gravity".
I can neither find such a journal nor the phrase "the fluidity of gravity" anywhere that is not a copy of this article. The British Library online catalogue doesn't go back before 1885 but maybe someone more familiar with the BL could find something? Anyway, as I don't see that it is essential to the narrative, I have deleted it rather than leave so obvious an invitation for a {{
citation needed}} tag. --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
17:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
References
Has anyone got Out of the Shadow of a Giant: Hooke, Halley and the Birth of British Science? It is cited but no page number is given. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 17:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
In anyone has access through their University to
would they clarify which institution awarded him the doctorate, please? (Last sentence of Royal Society section). Was it a medical doctorate? (in the old sense of the word physic). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 20:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
c
as an explanation of the "SRS, MD" honorifics. --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
11:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)I have finished work on a full-scale spring-clean of the article. I have provided citations for the many assertions, deleted some dubious and uncited ones (after searching for evidence) and verified (or not) the citations that were there. I have also cleared out or summarised the tangential material. Some of the rewording is fairly extensive. The big risk is wp:righting great wrongs in the Hooke/Newton dispute so I hope that I have maintained NPOV.
I think that it now GA standard and have added it to the "Physics and astronomy" queue for review. We shall see if it makes the cut. No doubt it could be improved further in the meantime, so please do so.
@ JzG and Casliber: you peer reviewed it in April 2013. If you have the time and inclination, your comments on this version would be most welcome. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 10:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tim riley ( talk · contribs) 17:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
There's nothing much wrong with this article, and I shall certainly be promoting it to GA. It is, to my mind, a potential FAC. I first ran across Hooke back in the 1970s in Pepys's diary (21 January 1665): "Before I went to bed I sat up till two o’clock in my chamber reading of Mr. Hooke’s Microscopicall Observations, the most ingenious book that ever I read in my life." I always meant to read more about Hooke, and now, thanks to you, I have. A few minor quibbles:
Nothing to frighten the horses there. I shan't bother putting the review formally on hold, unless you would prefer me to do so. Over to you, meanwhile. – Tim riley talk 17:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
His father died in October 1648, leaving £40 in his will to Robert together with another £10 held in trust from his grandmother.(which need a new citation, fortunately I still have Gribbin & Gribbin). I don't know if the "held in trust" is DUE?
A bitter dispute between Hooke and Christiaan Huygens on the priority of this invention was to continue for centuries after the death of both; but a note dated 23 June 1670 in the Hooke Folio, describing a demonstration of a balance-controlled watch before the Royal Society, has been held to favour Robert's claim to priority.There was a (not very precise) citation for the note [rectified, see
102 Oldenburg (1670) p 81
but more significantly, there was no citation for "has been held", which has been there since over 15 years ago. By whom? I have changed it to "may be held to favour" but maybe it should just be dropped? It is interesting but can it stand? It wouldn't pass FAC, I suspect. --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
16:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I enjoyed this very much indeed. On to FAC I hope! Tim riley talk 17:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Suggestions welcome! My very threadbare list just has
Anyone else? -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 21:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
At another place, Tim riley prompted these two
Any more? -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 16:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
References
Ball's attribution [1] of this aphorism to Clairaut is questionable as it appears rather more likely to be Mme du Chastelet's own work (since she has carefully credited all the other parts of her book to their respective authors). But until it is challenged by later academic research we must accept it at face value as it would violate Wikipedia policy WP:No original research to assert a different attribution. Consequently, Ball is cited in the concluding sentence of the section on Gravitation.
The full quotation is in section IX of
though the introduction (Avertissement) in Volume 1 of Mme du Chastelet's translation merely says that the Exposition is drawn in the main from the works of Clairaut or from the notebooks that he had previously given in the form of lessons to her. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 01:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29
talk
13:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by JMF ( talk). Self-nominated at 16:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Robert Hooke; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
![]() | Robert Hooke has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences 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. Review: February 17, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | Robert Hooke received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 3, 2017. |
![]() | A fact from Robert Hooke appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 27 March 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The article is a bit confused as it stands. In one place in the Oxford section, it says [with citation] that H secured a chorister's place at CC, but elsewhere in that section we have Wadham was then under the guidance of
John Wilkins
. So what? The DNB entry for H doesn't even mention Wadham. Delete?
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
10:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
The caption for the main image mentions a argument opposing the identification of the portrait of Hooke. However, the specifics of that argument aren’t mentioned. I unfortunately can’t access the article myself, but to anyone who can, could they write about them in the likeness section? Thank you. Leevine65 ( talk) 19:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Portrait of Robert Hooke
and immediately got access to both Griffing's original conjecture and Whittaker's rebuttal.Comments on Dr Whittaker's letter and the article
, which is Griffing's counterargument. --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
23:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)There is a possible typo under the section "Personality and disputes" , in the second paragraph, last sentence.
The whole paragraph reads as follows, with emphasis on the potential typo:
"On the other hand, as the Royal Society's curator of experiments, Hooke was tasked to demonstrate many ideas sent in to the Society. Some evidence suggests that Hooke subsequently assumed credit for some of these ideas.[citation needed] Yet in this period of immense scientific progress, numerous ideas were developed in multiple places roughly simultaneously. Immensely busy, Hook let many of his own ideas remain undeveloped, although others he patented." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazi109 ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, I've removed the parts that said "citation needed" since 2020, and tried to move the orphaned parts of that section to somewhere else in the article. Please feel free to revert if you disagree with the changes. Red Fiona ( talk) 20:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Reputedly, Hooke was a staunch friend and ally. In his early training at Wadham College, he was among ardent royalists, particularly Christopher Wren. Yet allegedly, Hooke was also proud, and often annoyed by intellectual competitors. Hooke contended that Oldenburg had leaked details of Hooke's watch escapement. Otherwise, Hooke guarded his own ideas and used ciphers. The Royal Society's Hooke papers, rediscovered in 2006, [1] (after disappearing when Newton took over) may open up a modern reassessment. In the 20th century, researchers Robert Gunther and Margaret 'Espinasse revived Hooke's legacy, establishing Hooke among the most influential scientists of his time. [2] [3]
Hooke's collaboration with Christopher Wren also included St Paul's Cathedral, whose dome uses a method of construction conceived by Hooke.because, if it refers to drawing a perfect circle for the base, it is directly contradicted by Inwood (p399). -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 12:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Hooke also participated in the design of the Pepys Library, which held the manuscripts of the diary of Samuel Pepys, the most frequently cited eyewitness account of the Great Fire of London. [4]as impossible because Pepys and Hooke both died in 1703. I assume that Hyam (1982) is being cited for " the most frequently cited eyewitness account", not the architecture. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 17:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Two important citations appear to fail verification, so would someone please check
Henry Sully, writing in Paris in 1737, described the anchor escapement as "an admirable invention of which Dr. Hooke, formerly professor of geometry in Gresham College at London, was the inventor". [5] failed verification William Derham also attributes it to Hooke. [6] failed verification
as I can't believe they were added to the article in bad faith. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 21:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I should make clear that the original text of the citations did not have URLs. These are the results of my searches and may be incorrect. Also, Derham says that Hooke claimed it, he does not say it is true, afaics. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 21:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Is this WP:original research
Several commentators who? have followed Hooke in calling Newton's spiral path mistaken, or even a 'blunder', but there are also the facts: (a) that Hooke left out of account Newton's specific statement that the motion resulted from dropping "a heavy body suspended in the Air" (i.e. a resisting medium), see Newton to Hooke, 28 November 1679, document #236, [7] and compare Hooke's report to the Royal Society on 11 December 1679 where Hooke reported the matter "supposing no resistance", see D Gjertsen, 'Newton Handbook' (1986), at p. 259; and (b) that Hooke's reply of 9 December 1679 to Newton considered the cases of motion both with and without air resistance: The resistance-free path was what Hooke called an 'elliptueid'; but a line in Hooke's diagram showing the path for his case of air resistance was, though elongated, also another inward-spiralling path ending at the Earth's centre: Hooke wrote "where the Medium ... has a power of impeding and destroying its motion the curve in which it would move would be some what like the Line AIKLMNOP &c and ... would terminate in the center C". Hooke's path including air resistance was therefore to this extent like Newton's. [8] The diagrams are also online: see Wilson, p. 241, showing Newton's 1679 diagram with spiral, [9] and extract of his letter; also Wilson, p. 242 showing Hooke's 1679 diagram including two paths, closed curve and spiral. [10] Newton pointed out in his later correspondence over the priority claim that the descent in a spiral "is true in a resisting medium such as our air is". [11]
I can't find any commentators that use the term "blunder"? -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 20:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I can't find any source for this assertion: His explanation of this phenomenon
[capilliary action] was subsequently published in Micrography Observ. issue 6, in which he also explored the nature of "the fluidity of gravity".
I can neither find such a journal nor the phrase "the fluidity of gravity" anywhere that is not a copy of this article. The British Library online catalogue doesn't go back before 1885 but maybe someone more familiar with the BL could find something? Anyway, as I don't see that it is essential to the narrative, I have deleted it rather than leave so obvious an invitation for a {{
citation needed}} tag. --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
17:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
References
Has anyone got Out of the Shadow of a Giant: Hooke, Halley and the Birth of British Science? It is cited but no page number is given. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 17:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
In anyone has access through their University to
would they clarify which institution awarded him the doctorate, please? (Last sentence of Royal Society section). Was it a medical doctorate? (in the old sense of the word physic). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 20:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
c
as an explanation of the "SRS, MD" honorifics. --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
11:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)I have finished work on a full-scale spring-clean of the article. I have provided citations for the many assertions, deleted some dubious and uncited ones (after searching for evidence) and verified (or not) the citations that were there. I have also cleared out or summarised the tangential material. Some of the rewording is fairly extensive. The big risk is wp:righting great wrongs in the Hooke/Newton dispute so I hope that I have maintained NPOV.
I think that it now GA standard and have added it to the "Physics and astronomy" queue for review. We shall see if it makes the cut. No doubt it could be improved further in the meantime, so please do so.
@ JzG and Casliber: you peer reviewed it in April 2013. If you have the time and inclination, your comments on this version would be most welcome. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 10:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tim riley ( talk · contribs) 17:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
There's nothing much wrong with this article, and I shall certainly be promoting it to GA. It is, to my mind, a potential FAC. I first ran across Hooke back in the 1970s in Pepys's diary (21 January 1665): "Before I went to bed I sat up till two o’clock in my chamber reading of Mr. Hooke’s Microscopicall Observations, the most ingenious book that ever I read in my life." I always meant to read more about Hooke, and now, thanks to you, I have. A few minor quibbles:
Nothing to frighten the horses there. I shan't bother putting the review formally on hold, unless you would prefer me to do so. Over to you, meanwhile. – Tim riley talk 17:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
His father died in October 1648, leaving £40 in his will to Robert together with another £10 held in trust from his grandmother.(which need a new citation, fortunately I still have Gribbin & Gribbin). I don't know if the "held in trust" is DUE?
A bitter dispute between Hooke and Christiaan Huygens on the priority of this invention was to continue for centuries after the death of both; but a note dated 23 June 1670 in the Hooke Folio, describing a demonstration of a balance-controlled watch before the Royal Society, has been held to favour Robert's claim to priority.There was a (not very precise) citation for the note [rectified, see
102 Oldenburg (1670) p 81
but more significantly, there was no citation for "has been held", which has been there since over 15 years ago. By whom? I have changed it to "may be held to favour" but maybe it should just be dropped? It is interesting but can it stand? It wouldn't pass FAC, I suspect. --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
16:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I enjoyed this very much indeed. On to FAC I hope! Tim riley talk 17:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Suggestions welcome! My very threadbare list just has
Anyone else? -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 21:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
At another place, Tim riley prompted these two
Any more? -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 16:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
References
Ball's attribution [1] of this aphorism to Clairaut is questionable as it appears rather more likely to be Mme du Chastelet's own work (since she has carefully credited all the other parts of her book to their respective authors). But until it is challenged by later academic research we must accept it at face value as it would violate Wikipedia policy WP:No original research to assert a different attribution. Consequently, Ball is cited in the concluding sentence of the section on Gravitation.
The full quotation is in section IX of
though the introduction (Avertissement) in Volume 1 of Mme du Chastelet's translation merely says that the Exposition is drawn in the main from the works of Clairaut or from the notebooks that he had previously given in the form of lessons to her. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 01:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29
talk
13:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by JMF ( talk). Self-nominated at 16:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Robert Hooke; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.