Template:Did you know nominations/Hammond Electric Bridge Table

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hammond Electric Bridge Table edit

(

)

... that the Hammond Electric Bridge Table was the first bridge table to automatically shuffle and deal cards using electricity?
ALT1 ... that Laurens Hammond of Hammond Organ fame referred to the mechanism in his electric bridge table as a "robot"?

Reviewed: Sotuta Municipality

Created by Doug Coldwell (talk). Self-nominated at 17:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC).

Article is new enough and long enough. Lead is too short and does not adequately summarise the article. Hook is correctly formatted. Article is under-referenced to reliable sources. Hook fact is directly cited. There may be scope for an Alt based on the connection with Hammond Organs (which a lot of readers would be interested in I think) and the fact that the dealing mechanism was called a "robot". AGF on off line source Famous First Facts, which is quoted in the sources. The article states that the table was one of the new products developed to save the clock company from failure but also that "this was Hammond's first real starting capital for the clock company" which seems contradictory. What is the source for "the national income had fallen to nearly half of what it was in 1929"? And is that true? What is the source for "When he put it on the market it was an unnecessary toy intended for the rich that were bored" which additionally is not neutral. The description section is sourced only to Ref 5 Reverse Time, which is not a reliable source. That source should be moved to external links and new sources found for that section. I detected no copy vios or close paraphrasing. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me see if I can solve the concerns you have, one by one.

1) - have expanded the lead.

2) - reference source provided for "the national income had fallen to nearly half of what it was in 1929"?

3) - reworded to "Hammond used the capital to save the clock company." and gave inline reference.

4) - put in other references for description section and moved Reverse Time to External links section.

5) - removed "When he put it on the market it was an unnecessary toy intended for the rich that were bored."

@Philafrenzy: Is it good for a green tick now?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Philafrenzy: Do you have an idea for an "ALT"?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Philafrenzy: - apparently other sources report the income in the United States at about half in 1932 of what it was in 1929.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me know when you are happy with it and I will finish the review. No rush. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright. I have a couple of PDFs coming from Universities tomorrow -> so in a few days I'll let you know when I am completely done.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Philafrenzy: - alright, I'm done. You can finish the review now. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@Philafrenzy: - FYI, the QPQ is the 4th of a set of 14. See my sandbox.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the expansion and addressing the queries. It's a much stronger article now. The lead is still a little brief if you have time to expand it but the nomination is good to go with either of the hooks. I prefer the Alt. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)