Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sholes and Glidden typewriter/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:18, 29 November 2009 [1].
Sholes and Glidden typewriter edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
Recent discussions at WT:FAC have suggested that an interesting nomination statement may entice reviewers to engage the article. Clearly such hucksterism is unnecessary for a topic as inherently enthralling and bewitching as a 140-year-old typewriter. Nevertheless, do read on as Wisconsin printers ditch their red polyester and fermented milk to pursue a comically large contraption which will ultimately be an insulter of intelligence, emancipator of women and, to those with a sense of practicality, a haunter of dreams - all while contending with belligerent stenographers, a bullying Alexander Graham Bell and a sarcastic Mark Twain. Эlcobbola talk 15:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You had me at the name :P Anyhow, images are impeccably sourced and verifiably free, I would expect nothing less from Elco :P I'll try and give a real review for this one too, if only so I actually know what's up with that monstrous beast :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I went through this with considerable care at peer review, raised numerous (minor) issues all of which have been addressed in the FAC version. Truly educational: now I know how QWERTY came about, and much else beside.
The images are all crap, thoughA great article to herald a welcome return (we hope) to action. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Elcobbola asked me to take a look through this article a few weeks ago, while it was at peer review. I thought it was very good then and I think it's even better now. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—I read this well-written and engaging article during the peer review and I am pleased to add my support. I am not expecting any problems with the (excellent) sources used or any other major obstacles. This is one of the best candidates of late. Graham Colm Talk 18:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Technical comment No dabs or dead links, and images have alts (and good ones). QWERTY! --an odd name (help honey) 20:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support 2c, 1c (Concerns addressed to my satisfaction, nominator has taken decisions on the resolution of outstanding points largely stylistic and up to nominator, all outcomes including "as is" meet criteria) All resolved concerns listed at talk Fifelfoo (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (Note: I recently peer reviewed this article. For once, I could not find anything to improve!) This is a clearly written and comprehensively researched article. I've been telling my friends all about this article for the past few days - it's fascinating! Thanks so much for writing it! Awadewit (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.
i have a couple of nitpicks and a general query on which i'd be interested to hear other editors views.
I have undertaken a few copyedits that main editors may wish to check.
"The Sholes and Glidden typewriter has its origin in a printing machine..." Why is this in the present tense when the S&G is no longer made?
- That introductory sentence was added by the GA reviewer (and I believe it a good addition, of course). I point that out not to fault that editor, but to suggest the reason may likely be because it added a second author (so to speak), and with it an alternative style. I've changed the tense ("has" to "had"). Эlcobbola talk 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do the sources comment on why this typewriter is called the S & G, given the particularly tangential role of Glidden, and that by the time Remington undertook manufacturing in 1873 neither individual was involved any longer?
- No, I'm afraid they don't (this is something I was curious about as well, and I looked all over for it). The only information regarding the name I could find was that Sholes' name preceded Glidden's in deference to Sholes' more advanced age. My supposition (i.e. OR) is that, as Soule dropped out first, Sholes and Glidden were the last of the original patent holders and the name was chosen accordingly; but why Remington chose to use both names instead of just Sholes, or even merely "Type-writer", is apparently unknown to history. Some unreliable sources (i.e. collector websites) joke that it should have been the Sholes & Densmore. Эlcobbola talk 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
General query re all WP articles, that I may as well raise here to see what anyone has to say: in the lead is this expression: "...the typewriter evolved from a crude curiosity into a practical device whose basic form became the industry standard". i have noticed that many WP articles use who/whose to refer to objects or organisations. I would expect this to read "...the typewriter evolved from a crude curiosity into a practical device the basic form of which became the industry standard." Is there any particular reason this form isn't used, either here or elsewhere?
- Ta. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are there any further issues here? I reviewed some tech stuff (dabs/ELs/alts), David Fuchs has cleared the images, Fifelfoo and Ealdgyth have cleared the citations and source formatting, hamiltonstone's list of prose issues is all struck with a support, and there's a bunch of other supporters. There's been no other comments in four-ish days, so I think we should promote the article to give the main FAC page some more breathing room. :) --an odd name 10:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC) (David Fuchs did say he would give a "real review" later, and he is very good at finding remaining issues, but given the hefty support here I think that may be better after promotion. Thoughts?) --an odd name 10:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.