Talk:Singer Model 27 and 127
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Singer Model 27 and 127 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Singer Model 27 and 127 was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Former good article nominee | |||||||||||||
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Errors edit
While doing my own research on the VS and 27 machines, I came across this Wikipedia article on the 27 and 127 and noted a few errors. From an article at ISMAC http://ismacs.net/singer_sewing_machine_company/singers_missing_link_the_high_arm_vibrating_shuttle.html it appears that the VS1 does not use the Whitehill patent for the drive train. The VS1 uses a shuttle that moves in a long-radius arc, and it is moved by a crank and gear-driven vertical shaft as in the Singer New Family/Model 12. This photo, http://needlebar.org/nbwiki/index.php/File:Vs1-6386796d.jpg from the Needlebar at http://needlebar.org/nbwiki/index.php/VS_1 shows the underside of a VS1. The VS2 is mechanically the same as a 27 and uses the Whitehill drivetrain, and a shuttle that moves on a short radius arc. From all the photos, the VS1 and VS2 both have fiddle beds, and the identification chart, which is copied from http://www.singersewinginfo.co.uk/28/ is wrong. WK 139.78.10.8 (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Status edit
First round of peer review finished; feedback from PKM and Amandajm has been integrated. See /archive1 for details. Txinviolet (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Finish and decals photo section edit
I am very impressed by the thoroughness of this article, but am concerned about some of the photos chosen for illustration of the decals section. They are obviously modern photos similar to those taken by collectors or sellers, yet have a stated date of 1 January 1885. The attributions are to Singer Manufacturing Company with public domain status. Specifically- File:Singer.Model128.LaVincendora.decal.jpg File:Singer.Model27.OttomanCarnation.decal.jpg File:Singer.Model28.Rococo.decal.jpg File:Singer.Model27.PaintedRoses.decal.jpg File:Singer.Model27.Sphinx.decal.jpg File:Singer.Model27.Tiffany.decal.jpg File:Singer.Model27.Victorian.decal.jpg
Are there photos available that have a more accurate attribution?
Stefanlil2 (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
These are photos *of old artwork*. The photos themselves do not meaningfully contribute to the artwork portrayed; therefore, the original copyright flows through the photo... and the original copyrights are long since expired.
Txinviolet (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
File:Singer.Model27.Sphinx.decal.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion edit
|
An image used in this article, File:Singer.Model27.Sphinx.decal.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
|
| Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
"VS3" vs. "28-1" edit
Can someone cite a reason that the VS3 is referenced here as "28-1"? Singer certainly didn't call it that when it was introduced. Pgf (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)