Talk:Straight razor

Razor and HIV

Why there is no information about multi-use razors and the HIV and other blood transmitted s**t risk? That's the main reason they got banned, as far as I know. To the one who wrote the section about legality - please provide short note about the reasoning behind the ban. 194.30.179.66 (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ban?

While someone is at it; please provide some documentation on this alleged ban. As far as I can determine, there are only a list of sources to various places without such bans, this does not strengthen the claim that someone has instituted a ban for any reason.

Looking more thorougly, the NY Times article makes this claim unsourced, in a setting where it could very well be an urban myth. The citation from Toronto officials is difficult to place as a guideline or a law, but anyways only advocates sterilisation. The rest of the citations are from the areas where straight razors are supposedly allowed.

I'm adding a sprinkle of Dubious here. 80.203.121.249 (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Gallery, Images, & Captions

There has been some edit-warring over the deletion of a lot of valuable information from the article regarding captioned pictures with explanatory text. These captioned pictures used to be spread all over in the article but user Nbarth put them together in a section of their own some time ago here. Yesterday user Duchamps comb moved them down after the see also section but I undid the edit citing WP:LAYOUT. Today the same user deleted the whole section citing WP:NOTREPOSITORY but these examples do not fall under that policy section so I added the section back. In fact if we have to invoke WP:NOTREPOSITORY we can invoke it for adding trivia sections like the one added yesterday. What straight razor Bugs Bunny used with Elmer Fudd is completely irrelevant to this encyclopedic article. But clearly the example section is germane to understanding the topic of the straight razor as user Nbarth remarked in their edit summary here. I would appreciate any thoughts and ideas from other users. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:IMGSIZE, WP:CAP, WP:IG, WP:NOTREPOSITORY. This page HAS problems, the Gallery is in the middle of the page (very disruptive), it does not add any value (except frivolous information) unless you are a collector. The images have all been force sized up from 220px to over 300px in many cases. The image captions are WAY over inflated, to the point of absurdity.--Duchamps_comb MFA 17:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I would not object to moving the examples, reducing the size of the images and even trimming the captions. But let's do it in a controlled fashion, not via wholesale deletion. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I moved the examples lower and trimmed some captions while decreasing the size of some pics. I will get back to some more trimming a bit later. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Drop-down gallery? I am ok with that. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for seeing some of my points. The page has been much improved. There may be a better HTML code for a drop down list, with a larger title, edit that at will. Still some of the captions are still over-inflated, do what you can to address this. If you feel the "film and media" section is not needed please state why.--Duchamps_comb MFA 19:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice comment. As far as the trivia section, what can I say. WP:TRIVIA covers it all, but I will not spend time discussing its removal. These sections however do exhibit an uncanny ability to grow over time and become bloated with all kinds of trivia. So they need to be cropped from time to time. I am ok with the current code of the drop-down section and I will further try to trim the captions. Thanks again. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to weigh in (talk page), seeing as I originally made the gallery.

Seems the discussion is largely resolved (a gallery, trim captions, collapse to deal with v. long captions), but to state my thoughts:

Examples of historical straight razors are obviously helpful, as is captioning to note significant details; having them in a gallery (at the bottom) is less disruptive than having them spread across the article, particularly for discussion of details.

V. detailed descriptions are useful information, but should be placed on the image pages at Wikimedia commons (currently these have no descriptions – the v. long captions would make great descriptions there).

For captions, I’d specifically favor mentioning design details, but not details of the specific razor. E.g.,

The main advantage of such a large blade size is that it can carry lots of lather through multiple successive shaving strokes and it does not have to be rinsed as often as a smaller sized blade, if at all, for a complete shave

is useful, though could be made shorter (“Large blades carry more lather, hence fewer rinses and a faster shave.”)

OTOH,

The etching is very poor quality and the faint Best Brand logo indicates a generic Asian import. Some corrosion is apparent on the blade at the lower end of the shoulder, near the heel.

…is not very helpful on the article page, but is useful on the image page at Commons.

Also, dunno about layout, but having bigger images – say in two columns, with text on the side (rather than below) – would make detailed examination easier.

Thanks all!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much Nils for your excellent critique and comments. Also per your comment ...but having bigger images – say in two columns, with text on the side (rather than below) – would make detailed examination easier. I will try to see how this is technically possible. It sounds like a good idea. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a note: I'm afraid the collapsible gallery may not be such a good idea after all, per MOS:COLLAPSE. Short story is, there are accessibility issues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much Future for help in the technical department. It is refreshing and a welcome change to see you involved in something other than ethnic disputes :) I guess we have to do some more work on this gallery. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I trimmed the captions and since the captions now are normal size the pictures can now be reintegrated back into the article to illustrate the points made at the relevant sections, a function the pictures used to perform before the galleries were created. I understand that the overlong captions made the gallery option a necessary evil but now that the caption length has been trimmed considerably the gallery and its associated problems have been removed. Thanks to all for their great suggestions and especially to Future who took time away from the volcanic instability of ethnic disputes to offer his great suggestion which catalysed the reintegration of the pictures into the article. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of opinions for citations and unsubstantiated claims

This article is chock full of claims only substantiated by opinions. The claim that straight razors provide a better shave only cites two articles, both opinion pieces by old timers reminiscing about the good old days of shaving. The citation for the claim that one will never cut himself if he doesn't hold the blade perpendicular to his skin and pull lengthwise, besides being an opinion article, doesn't even make that claim, saying only that holding the blade perpendicular and pulling will cause a cut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.166.192 (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Straight razor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 17:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've had a glance and I can see a few MoS issues (the lead doesn't follow WP:Lead, and the layout doesn't follow WP:Layout), but there is plenty of material, and I see cite notes, so hopefully it's just a matter of tidying things up. I'll take a look over the next few days and then leave some initial comments. SilkTork *^YES! 17:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This is a very detailed and informative article. Well done. Some quick comments on GA criteria:

• Article is stable. It is mainly the work of User:Dr.K.. SilkTork *^YES! 18:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Images have appropriate tags. Some captions are rather long - see WP:Caption. Some of the images squeeze the text, and there are too many images. Select a few high quality, representative images, and remove the rest. See MOS:IMAGES and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(layout)#Images. SilkTork *^YES! 18:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• MoS. For such a long and informative article, the lead does not adequately cover the subject. See WP:Lead. Some sections are rather short which makes the article appear cluttered and impedes flow. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout).
• Neutral. The article is mainly neutral - though statements such as "Still others agree that straight razors provide a superior shave" appear to be asserting a point of view.
• References. There are sources, and the sources are organised into a section. The presentation of the sources is non-standard, in that it quotes extensively - see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_present_citations for guidance on ways to present citations. The main problem however is the type, reliability and appropriateness of the sources. There are a couple of tertiary sources, and a number of commercial websites combined with enthusiast websites. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources. The article is in need of good quality, reliable secondary sources. A book such as History of Shaving and Razors may be worth getting, this article may be helpful, and this, and this and this. I'll continue to browse through, though this review will be put on hold for a week to allow better quality sources to be found and used.
• Coverage. This article is related to the parent article Razor, and will share much of that article's history - so some consideration will need to be made as to how much material belongs in Razor and how much in Straight razor. Should Jean Jacques Ferret be mentioned in this article? And the first recorded date of the folding razor. This has some information. SilkTork *^YES! 19:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

On hold

The review is on hold for an initial seven days to allow appropriate sources to be found, consulted and used in the article. Seven days is not long, so I understand that more time may be needed, though I'd like to check back in seven days to see what progress is being made, and what problems are being encountered. I can be pinged on my talkpage at any time to answer any queries. SilkTork *^YES! 19:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the main contributor is busy at the moment. I feel that there is rather too much work to be done to get this to meet GA criteria in a reasonable time even with an editor able to focus time on it. I will close this as not listed tomorrow unless I get a convincing reason not to. SilkTork *^YES! 11:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Close - not listed

I have tidied up some of the more obvious problems with the article, and tagged for those areas which still need attention. The article does need better quality sources. When the issues have been dealt with the article can be nominated again. Good luck! SilkTork *^YES! 09:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture

Really? It's a bit ridiculous. Unless anyone objects I will cut it down to three or four of the most notable items (e.g. Reservoir Dogs, Sweeney Todd, and ... actually maybe I will just delete it. I mean come on... 155.198.65.73 (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. These sections have a tendency to grow to absurd levels. Cut at will. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed it whole cloth. It added no value at all. Rob Standefer ^talk 17:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)