Talk:Sholes and Glidden typewriter/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 15:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Looks OK - but I like to check out the sources to ensure that it's accurate. Facts seem to be used correctly based on my research.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
I think it is focused - however I have a very minor concern about the weight of focus early on regarding the inventor rather than the machine itself.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Looks interesting. And initially looks good. However, I do have two main concerns.

My first concern is over the language register which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. The early development section is quite personal and chatty, rather than informative. And what does "conceived to manufacture a mechanical device to assist the process of printing page and serial numbers in books, tickets and other items" actually mean?
My second concern is how was the mechanical device going to be different from what already existed? A typewriter is a printing machine, and I would like to see some sense of where it fits into the development of print machines. I feel we need a bit more about the history and development of the typewriter. A condensed version of Typewriter#Early_innovations would be helpful. I don't much is needed - possibly a sentence or two - just to put it into context - these might be useful: [1], [2], [3] and [4]. And a little bit of material from Sholes_and_Glidden_typewriter#Design could be incorporated earlier to let readers know that there had been other attempts, and where this one built on previous designs and where it was original. It sounds like a lot of work - but really the content enhancement shouldn't be much. The trickier bit is getting the tone right so that the article is informative and focused on the machine rather than the people who invented it. As an example - this sentence: "Densmore and Yost traveled to Ilion, New York to demonstrate the device" is currently worded so that the importance is in Densmore and Yost. Do we need them at all at that point? And what significance does Ilion, New York have for the reader? Think about what the reader needs to know: "Following a demonstration at Remington's offices in New York, the company contracted on March 1, 1873, to manufacture 1,000 machines..."

I'll take a look at the other criteria over the next few days. SilkTork *^YES! 15:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images are fine. SilkTork *^YES! 15:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First bullet: I asked Malleus Fatuorum to check the prose and he appears to have done some helpful copyediting. I removed the quote by Glidden from the "Early Development" section as well, as it did seem perhaps too conversational. I hope it was influencing your opinion of the section, as I don't see how this section is otherwise uninformative/too focused on the inventors/unencyclopedic. For example, to explain the six sentences of the first paragraph:

1. introduces namesake and primary inventor
2. introduces second of three initial inventors
3. introduces some time context and implicit information (i.e. that two printers had the competence to successfully invent something - also a basis for their later collaboration)
4. introduces third of three initial inventors and the "seed" idea for the device.
5 and 6. introduce an impetus to begin development

Can you give examples of what you feel is "quite personal and chatty"? Эlcobbola _talk 20:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second bullet: I'm concerned you might have missed a theme of the design section (and it may well be due to poor explanation on my part). I've tried to reword the section accordingly. The point that needs to come across is that this typewriter did not build upon previous printing devices; as the article says, no previous work was consulted. While historians are of course able to look back and see that several concepts were actually reinventions, Sholes, et. al. did not realize that is what they were doing. The only pre-existing designs they relied upon were non-printing devices (e.g. cannibalizing piano keys and watch movement).

The machines described in Typewriter#Early innovations are all known from patents; the devices were either conceptual (i.e. weren't built) or built in such small numbers that, as a practical and maybe even literal matter, no one but the inventors knew about them. The only device there of any consequence is the Hansen Writing Ball, which was first patented and entered production in 1870 (after the 1868 Sholes and Glidden model). Is there then really any context to be gained? How does telling the reader that several writing machines had been patented (almost all in Europe, by the way) before this began development establish genuinely meaningful context or assist their knowledge of this device? Эlcobbola _talk 16:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to address this with this addition. It should give some of the context you might be looking for (i.e. the state of printing machines - there really weren't any). It also foreshadows the devices to be mentioned later without getting into their specifics (which I don't believe would be appropriate given their minimal and tangential relevance to the subject). Эlcobbola _talk 18:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of "To that point, several dozen patents for printing devices had been issued in the United States and abroad..." is helpful. Thank you. I'll go through the article over the next few days, and if the editing is minor I'll do it myself. Anything significant I'll bring here for discussion. SilkTork *^YES! 14:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just incorporated information from a new source which went into more detail regarding the machine's development. Other sources spoke generally about not having consulted previous work, but were apparently addressing only the first model produced. The new source indicates other patents were finally consulted when Sholes set out to make revisions; I've added that information, so hopefully it addresses your concern about the relationship to other devices. Эlcobbola _talk 22:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware I haven't spent much time on this recently. I apologise. I have been rather more busy off-Wiki than I had anticipated. I do hope to spend some time on this over the next few days. SilkTork *^YES! 10:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Thanks for the note. Эlcobbola _talk 19:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Women and the typewriter[edit]

I keep looking at this article thinking that it is so close to being a GA, that it must be easy to either note or directly do the small things needed, but not quite putting my finger on my hesitation. I have been attracted by the Women and the typewriter section, and felt the opening sentence could do with a rewrite, so I looked up one of the sources - Literary secretaries/secretarial culture, and was about to write an opening comment along the lines of "Typewriting became a female occupation almost from the start..." when I realised that the focus of the section is rather too general for an article on a specific typewriter. I can see how it started, as there are comments about the influence of the Remington on the association of women with the typewriter, however the section has gone for "Women and the typewriter" rather than the narrower focus of "Remington's influence on women and the typewriter". The section would need a slight rethink with a start along these lines: "The association of women with the typewriter has been linked by observers such as Leah Price, Pamela Thurschwell, to Scholes and Remington's marketing of the Sholes and Glidden typewriter..." SilkTork *^YES! 16:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted the first sentence, and the rest seems to flow reasonably. SilkTork *^YES! 16:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passing[edit]

The article conveys the essentials of the topic. I have been quibbling about the tone and focus, and have slightly adjusted a couple of sentences; however, reflecting on the matter, I think I am being slightly over-cautious. I think the article meets the GA criteria and the spirit of the GA process. Passed. SilkTork *^YES! 16:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]