Skip to content

Canonical Review Workflow

Generated pages give the archive breadth. Canonical review gives it authority.

This workflow explains how a source passage, equation, diagram, glossary term, or interpretive note moves from candidate material into the stable research layer.

StageRequired EvidenceAllowed Public Use
CandidateGenerated extraction or first-pass reading with source ID.Navigation aid only.
Source-locatedChapter, page, line, figure, equation, or section location recorded.May be linked and summarized with needs-verification label.
Scan-verifiedChecked against scan or trusted edition; OCR corrected where needed.May be quoted and used as a reliable source anchor.
Mathematically reviewedNotation, variables, units, derivation, and modern equivalent checked.May enter equation canon or worked-example pages.
Context reviewedHistorical, modern engineering, and comparison claims separated and sourced.May become a mature concept, chapter, or comparison page.
CanonicalSource, math, diagrams, glossary, crosslinks, and review notes complete.Stable public knowledge page.
  • Original form transcribed from scan or trusted edition.
  • Variables listed with Steinmetz-era meanings.
  • Modern notation supplied separately.
  • Units and dimensional consistency checked where possible.
  • Derivation or reconstruction shown step by step.
  • Worked numerical example added when useful.
  • Relationship to modern textbook form stated.
  • Any OCR uncertainty or edition difference noted.
  • Source title, edition, printed page, and figure number recorded.
  • Original crop saved with manifest and checksum.
  • Crop box or page-render source recorded.
  • Caption transcribed and checked.
  • Modern redraw clearly labeled as reconstruction.
  • Annotations separated from original image.
  • Linked to concepts, equations, and source section.
  • Steinmetz’s own wording or usage is quoted or paraphrased with citation.
  • All major source appearances are listed.
  • Modern equivalent is separated from original wording.
  • Mathematical explanation is included where the concept is quantitative.
  • Historical context is marked as context.
  • Tesla-era and ether-field readings are labeled as comparison or interpretation.
  • Common misunderstandings are addressed.

The best version of this archive should invite multiple kinds of review:

  • Electrical engineer: equations, apparatus, circuits, power systems.
  • Historian of technology: editions, chronology, institutional context.
  • Physicist: fields, radiation, relativity, modern theory boundaries.
  • Mathematician: notation, derivations, transformations, dimensional checks.
  • Alternative-field researcher: interpretive readings, clearly separated from source claims.
  • Web/documentation reviewer: usability, accessibility, linking, search, and citation flow.

A page can be useful before it is canonical. It must not pretend to be canonical before it has passed the relevant review gates.