Content deleted Content added
→Oliver Typewriter Company: responses |
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) →Oliver Typewriter Company: serious issues |
||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
*'''Support'''. Question, however: Was the comapny which purchard the Oliver Typewriter Company really already called the British Oliver Typewriter Company? If so, that is quite a coincidence. If they changed their name after buying the American company, that ought to be noted. And you also don't need to include language=English in the citations, as that is the default for the English wikipedia. [[User:Karanacs|Karanacs]] ([[User talk:Karanacs|talk]]) 17:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Support'''. Question, however: Was the comapny which purchard the Oliver Typewriter Company really already called the British Oliver Typewriter Company? If so, that is quite a coincidence. If they changed their name after buying the American company, that ought to be noted. And you also don't need to include language=English in the citations, as that is the default for the English wikipedia. [[User:Karanacs|Karanacs]] ([[User talk:Karanacs|talk]]) 17:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
**It was actually newly-formed; I changed the phrasing to clarify. [[User:elcobbola|<font color="black">'''Ɛƚ'''</font><font color="red">'''ƈơƅƅ'''</font><font color="orange">'''ơƚɑ'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:elcobbola|talk]]</sub> 17:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC) |
**It was actually newly-formed; I changed the phrasing to clarify. [[User:elcobbola|<font color="black">'''Ɛƚ'''</font><font color="red">'''ƈơƅƅ'''</font><font color="orange">'''ơƚɑ'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:elcobbola|talk]]</sub> 17:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Note''', serious 1c problems, non-reliable sources, failure to identify publishers in references. I've just made numerous MOS corrections[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oliver_Typewriter_Company&diff=187570737&oldid=187508212] (pls review [[WP:DASH]], [[WP:HYPHEN]], [[WP:GTL]], this is the English wiki, we don't have to identify English-language websites) and while I was in there, I encountered numerous personal websites which don't meet Wiki's [[WP:RS]] requirements. References are not correctly formatted, authors publication dates and publishers need to be identified, reliable sources need to be used. WHENEVER publishers are not identified in the references, the quality of the references should be individually checked. |
|||
:* What makes this a reliable source? http://www.typewritermuseum.org/about.html |
|||
:* What makes this reliable, appears commercial. http://www.officemuseum.com/ |
|||
:* What makes this personal webpage a reliable source? http://homepage.mac.com/sljohnson/ |
|||
:* A geocities personal webpage: http://www.geocities.com/wbd641/ |
|||
:* An earthlink personal webpage: http://home.earthlink.net/~dcrehr/ |
|||
External links also include these personal webpages. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:04, 28 January 2008
Oliver Typewriter Company
Nominator Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 15:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe the article meets the FA criteria. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 15:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
From a quick glance, it looks a bit short. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with a length requirement on WP:FAC. Criterion 4 mentions length, but that is in reference to maintaining summary style). The closest criterion seems to be 3B, which states "'Comprehensive' means that the article does not neglect major facts and details" (emphasis added). Could you please elaborate if there are indeed major facts or details you believe are missing? ( Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 16:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't give it that good a look just yet. I just thought it would be good to give you first impressions first. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- One thing that does catch my eye, however, is that there is no information on how the British Oliver Typewriter Company went bust. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't give it that good a look just yet. I just thought it would be good to give you first impressions first. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support. I did the GA review on this article, and I believe that it is about as comprehensive as it is reasonable to expect it to be without going into unnecesary detail. It is well-referenced, well-written, and doesn't need to be padded to meet some imaginary "too short" FA criterion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Proper comment. I will support this if
- The nominator explains why "heart disease" is written in quotes.
- My understanding is that the term “heart disease” in the early 1900s actually could have meant heart attack. I didn’t want to assume this was the case, however, as it might have indeed been another aliment/disease. I, therefore, put heart disease in quotes because that is the exact verbiage used in the NYT article. I'll move the reference. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 04:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- An explanation is added to why the British Oliver Typewriter Company went out of business. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don’t think that information exists. The British company was “small potatoes” and not particularly notable. As most of its products went to the government for the war effort, they weren’t terribly well known to the general populace. It was a small, local company that licensed the Oliver name to other manufactures. I don’t think the world really noticed, so to speak, that it disappeared. Information on the British firm just doesn’t exist (again, no one really cared). Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 04:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Please review the dead links:Check external links SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)- What links are dead? Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 04:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, earlier this evening I changed the ranks of the content-type mismatch. So now its accurate. — Dispenser 05:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, earlier this evening I changed the ranks of the content-type mismatch. So now its accurate. — Dispenser 05:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- What links are dead? Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 04:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Object I was very much in favor of the promotion to GA and would have done the review myself if it would have been clear enough that it was not a conflict of interest. However, since the article was quite short I did not do the review. However for an FA a lot is missing.
- Let's start with the first paragraph and infobox. Do we have an address of where the company was located? At least can you tell me what neighborhood?
- See Oliver Building (Chicago), to which the article links. We can include that information if you want, but does it matter for an article about a company that hasn’t existed since 1928? Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 04:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Include it under headquarters in the infobox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- See Oliver Building (Chicago), to which the article links. We can include that information if you want, but does it matter for an article about a company that hasn’t existed since 1928? Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 04:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Only one person can have a majority of the stock. If one person has 65% the other can not have a majority.
- Smith bought "majority of the company’s stock from the Iowa investors." (i.e. Oliver owned 65% and Iowans owned 35%; Smith bought the majority of the 35% held by the Iowans). I'll make the phrasing more clear. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 04:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Done
- O.K. but now it is not clear he bought 35%.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Smith bought "majority of the company’s stock from the Iowa investors." (i.e. Oliver owned 65% and Iowans owned 35%; Smith bought the majority of the 35% held by the Iowans). I'll make the phrasing more clear. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 04:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Done
- Things seem out of order with 1909 events being presented before 1895 and 1907 events in the same section.
- I assume you're refering to Oliver's death. That is there to stay within the "Thomas Oliver" section. Yes, it could be moved to the IL section, but I made the small chronologic "sacrifice" for the sake of organization. I don’t think it impairs readability. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 04:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- The middle paragraph in the IL section needs to be expanded. Having watched Will Smith in The Pursuit of Happyness, I can sort of imagine how the sales worked, but the technique must have some sort of link here.
- What information do you want? Will Smith movies are not pertinent to typewriters? Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 04:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am talking about the sales technique. Please expand so that it is clear.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- What information do you want? Will Smith movies are not pertinent to typewriters? Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 04:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can you expand on the liquidation?
- When you say assist the war effort, please explain. I think I know what you mean, but clearly these are not weapons of mass destruction.
- Orders, reports, all other correspondence were typed. As you can imagine, war generates a great deal of such documents. No word processing programs in 1940s. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 04:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- The article is quite skimpy. You could explain this in the article instead of here and help beef up the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orders, reports, all other correspondence were typed. As you can imagine, war generates a great deal of such documents. No word processing programs in 1940s. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 04:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- In general, have you fully linked the article, it seems underlinked.
- Did they use QWERTY keyboards? How many keys on each model?
- Yes, and I can add this information. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 04:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Done'
- I see QWERTY in the text, but I don't see key count info.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and I can add this information. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 04:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Done'
- Not there yet for me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I thank you for your input, but I’m concerned that expanding on some of your comments within the article would be stating the blatantly obvious and, thus, impair the prose. I may certainly be wrong, however, and, if you could be more specific, I can do what I can to address the concerns. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 04:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- I like to feel I have above average powers of inference and feel wanting for explanations and more in general.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- I want to ensure that you and other editors are cognoscente of historical context. The article addresses a late 19th century company that lasted just over thirty years (i.e. does not currently exist and did not exist in a “modern era”). It’s important to point out that record keeping, reporting, etc. at company, industry and government levels were all quite different when Oliver existed. Without getting too far into issues requiring an economics background, it is perhaps most simply put to say that company information, if recorded at all, was never made public, as it is today – even with private firms. Industry analysis groups (e.g. Hoovers) did not exist, nor did services such as Google Finance. Most import to note is that the SEC didn’t even exist. I would urge you to remember that, given Oliver’s operating period, it isn’t really reasonable to expect the article to have the pure content volume of, say, a still-existent or “modern” entity; frankly, I don’t know that the “skimpy” concern is valid. The FA criterion is that the article be comprehensive. I believe that all major facts reasonably expected to be in existence are incorporated in the article. It seems to me that this is the test of comprehensiveness, not a vague (at best) interpretation of length. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 04:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I like to feel I have above average powers of inference and feel wanting for explanations and more in general.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- I thank you for your input, but I’m concerned that expanding on some of your comments within the article would be stating the blatantly obvious and, thus, impair the prose. I may certainly be wrong, however, and, if you could be more specific, I can do what I can to address the concerns. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 04:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Let's start with the first paragraph and infobox. Do we have an address of where the company was located? At least can you tell me what neighborhood?
- P.S. What is that pencil like thing in the picture?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Good question! When you put it down against the paper, it draws vertical lines as you advance the paper (e.g. to create tables for use in accounting, etc) Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 04:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can you work this into the article?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Good question! When you put it down against the paper, it draws vertical lines as you advance the paper (e.g. to create tables for use in accounting, etc) Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 04:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. Between my previous comments and the somewhat unofficial look of a few of the sources, I think I can offer a Weak Support. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support For such a small, defunct company, I think that Elcobbola has done an excellent job of digging up reliable sources. This article was succinct (a virtue not always found at FAC), well-written, informative, and carefully illustrated. I have only a few minor suggestions:
- The Olivers are "down strike" typewriters, meaning the typebars strike the platen from above, rather than from below ("up strike"), or from the front ("front strike"). - I would define "platen" - it is an uncommon word and you don't want readers to have to click to understand such a crucial sentence.
- Customer preference for four-row keyboards, and the relatively greater striking power of the "down strike" design, led the American Oliver to be "marginalized"[3] for use as a stencil maker or "manifolder". - Again, such a crucial sentence should be explained a bit more - "stencil maker" and "manifolder" could be explained in a phrase or two. Awadewit | talk 15:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- After reading the above discussion, I'm not sure that "heart disease" should be linked in the article - is that appropriate? Awadewit | talk 15:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I must say, I didn’t expect the heart disease to be so contentious. :) I suppose my concern was the use of “sudden”; dropping dead on a train platform seems to hint greatly that this was a heart attack (as opposed to disease, which one would expect to act somewhat more slowly). Given the multiple meanings associated with “heart disease”, I reasoned readers may have found the link helpful. Upon reflection, however, it seems equally possible that the link could cause the opposite effect, as too much specificity could impair one’s existing, general understanding of the term. Ultimately, I’m easily persuaded either way with the formatting; I’ve removed the quotation marks and the wikilink. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 16:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- After reading the above discussion, I'm not sure that "heart disease" should be linked in the article - is that appropriate? Awadewit | talk 15:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Question, however: Was the comapny which purchard the Oliver Typewriter Company really already called the British Oliver Typewriter Company? If so, that is quite a coincidence. If they changed their name after buying the American company, that ought to be noted. And you also don't need to include language=English in the citations, as that is the default for the English wikipedia. Karanacs (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note, serious 1c problems, non-reliable sources, failure to identify publishers in references. I've just made numerous MOS corrections[1] (pls review WP:DASH, WP:HYPHEN, WP:GTL, this is the English wiki, we don't have to identify English-language websites) and while I was in there, I encountered numerous personal websites which don't meet Wiki's WP:RS requirements. References are not correctly formatted, authors publication dates and publishers need to be identified, reliable sources need to be used. WHENEVER publishers are not identified in the references, the quality of the references should be individually checked.
- What makes this a reliable source? http://www.typewritermuseum.org/about.html
- What makes this reliable, appears commercial. http://www.officemuseum.com/
- What makes this personal webpage a reliable source? http://homepage.mac.com/sljohnson/
- A geocities personal webpage: http://www.geocities.com/wbd641/
- An earthlink personal webpage: http://home.earthlink.net/~dcrehr/
External links also include these personal webpages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)