Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Sholes and Glidden typewriter/archive1

Resolved

From Fifelfoo (talk) initially, pasted at 00:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

2c:

Citation 48 "^ a b Campbell-Kelly 2005" lacks a page reference. Adequately discussed, resolution left to nominator.

Your bibliography is manual, but contains confusing references such as "*Barbour, Harry E. (1906). "Development of the Typewriter". The Making of America (The Making of America Company) 7" which is confusing because of the 7. Is this a book in Series? If so, what's the series name. Is this a Volume? If so the Volume should follow the title. Is this a chapter (normal use of quotes) in a book? Is this a journal called "The Making of America"? If so where's the date and issue information? Why is the publisher name separating the volume and the journal title? If this is a chapter in a book, where's the book editor? If the chapter author is the book author, why aren't you citing the book as a whole as is commonly done? Source removed.

Publisher locations for 19th and early 20th century obscure presses, please (see Barbour1906 above) Actioned

Your citations lack year brackets, your bibliography has them. Confusing style. Acceptable style choice, discussed.

Issue number preceeding volume number? Hoke, Donald (1979). "The Woman and the Typewriter: A Case Study in Technological Innovation and Social Change". Business and Economic History (Milwaukee Public Museum) 2 8 Noted concerns below, decision regarding resolution (including leaving as is) left to nominator

Is Volume 21 really the subtitle on the title page of this work? "Burlingame, Roger (1976). Engines of Democracy, Volume 21. New York: Scribner. ISBN 0405076762" Resolved

1c:

The Rotarian cannot support this claim "A "major consequence"[56] of the typewriter's development was the entrance of women into the clerical work force." (Melville, Arthur (1923). "The Machine Gun of Commerce" The Rotarian (Rotary International) 23) Resolved.

Please find a higher quality source on gender, type writers, feminisation of the office. Resolved.

Regarding 2C concerns:

The Campbell-Kelly 2005 source literature does not have page numbers. This is not an omission.

It does have named sections though, useage a is §Prehistory¶1-3. usage b is §Prehistory¶4. You could just go with §Prehistory which provides an adequate demonstration of the location of the verifying material.

Barbour has been removed.

All sources now have publisher locations.

Citations with parenthesis and references without is the format used in both the example on the featured article criteria page itself, as well as the format on WP:CITE. I see nothing confusing about this format. 2C requires only "consistently formatted inline citations"; all inline cites indeed have the same format.

In the Hoke 1979 reference, "2" is a series number. My understanding is that it is supposed to precede the volume. This publication does not have issue numbers.

Given that 1) Series are relatively rare in journals, 2) there's no issue number, you could either bold the series number and unbold the volume, or indicate more clearly the Series by (for example), prefacing the Series Number, say Series: 2, 8.

Volume 21 was a typo. Removed. Эlcobbola _talk 01:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding 1C concern:

A "major consequence" is being supported by Utterback, not Melville (thus the [55] immediately succeeding the quote). The Melville cite for the overall sentence is not needed (it is merely additional support to Utterback) and can be either removed or replaced if this is a genuine issue. Эlcobbola _talk 01:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced Melville with Beeching anyway. Эlcobbola _talk 01:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)