Talk:Elderly Instruments

Nice Advertisement

Nice advertisement for the company! Good job Wikipedia! --64.181.88.254 (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It'll be on the main page tommorow! To every other (big) company: you want free advertisement? Put one of your employees on the task and make your article shine! Cheers, Face 07:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Or not. Wikipedia should not be presented as a corporate billboard. Peter ^Isotalo 07:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I wrote this article and I am not connected to the company in any way. I also did not request that it appear on the main page. The administrator in charge of that task chose it on his own. If you feel there is language in the article that is not of an encyclopedic tone, let's discuss it. --Laser brain (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I read the article for the Spoken Wikipedia project and feel that the tone of the article is neutral. I also feel that this company is historically important for its work with certain types of instruments and their presence in the folk music scene. I do not feel that this article is any more of an advertisement than an article for IBM or McDonald's. These companies in some way changed or contributed historically and as such deserve an encyclopedic entry. I am also not connected to the company nor even play an instrument nor am remotely interested in folk music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PopularOutcast (talk • contribs) 22:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a side note: my comment was not meant sarcastic. In fact, I don't mind that companies edit, and hopefully improve, their own articles. As long as they stay neutral and calm of course, which I don't think is as hard as it seems. Laser brain, my compliments for your work! This article is a nice read. Outcast, thanks too. Even though the recording is a bit monotonic, your voice has a pleasant sound. Cheers, Face 22:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well Face, it *is* recorded in mono. ;o) For the same reason they keep the articles neutral, I've tried to keep my voice neutral too, but your input is appreciated as this was only my third read article.PopularOutcast (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead where it claims it is "best known as a premier repair shop" kind of made me question the objectivity..who/how may say it is one of the best and how is this determined? "staff was already experienced at taking and shipping orders for customers throughout the world" sounds a little grandiose. I couldn't continue reading when I got to the "Repair and appraisals" section. Most of the article is fine neutrality-wise, but I still would have slapped a POV on the parts or all of the article if I had randomly stumbled across it. I may be more stringent than most people on neutrality, but I would have guessed that more than a few editors would have had problems with this article. I am surprised it was featured in its current form. Dwr12 (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Dwr12, thanks for the input. As with other featured articles, the claims are not those of the article editors but those of the sources used for the article. Multiple sources cite Elderly Instruments as the place to get your guitar repaired, especially if it is a complicated project. That reputation is a big part of its notability. --Laser brain (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Laser Brain, even if I could produce sources saying I'm the greatest person that has ever lived, that wouldn't make it so (I lean towards "yes", but the jury's still out). The point is that we have hundreds of FA's that haven't been on the main page yet. If we feature articles that read like advertisements, that will only hurt our reputation. Even if those articles somehow formally adhere to the basic rules. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 01:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying Laser Brain, and I don't mean to disparage your fine contributions. It is just that most of the descriptions of this shop are quite laudatory, and there are a lot of opinions/statements included from the shop owner who is a biased source of information. The information in the article probably is an accurate collection of what the sources out there say about the place, but that is to be expected given that most publicity about small businesses comes from the business itself, local publications, and trade magazines (which all generally offer praise rather than critique). The sources listed in the reference section all seem to fit one of these three categories. Dwr12 (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I rememer back in September when Ernest Emerson was a Featured Article, and there was a widespread appeal to Raul654 that he not feature articles that read like pure advertisements, even if they did adhere to the strictly formal criteria of FAs. He chose to ignore it then, and now he's ignored it again. As they say, once is a freak occurrence. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is enemy action. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 01:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a mischaracterization, since Ernest Emerson passed a subsequent Featured article revew. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a mischaracterization; I never said it shouldn't have FA status, the request was simply that it not be featured on the main page. The two things are not necessarily one and the same. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 04:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And by the same token, we should never "advertise" video games or albums or books or movies, for example, on the main page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a fruitless debate. This is a matter of sound judgement, the question is whether it should be left to the community, or to two randomly chosen guys. You know very well that FA status does not equal main page exposure, as Raul has several articles on hold that will never be featured. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 04:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there's only one I would be hesitant to feature - Jenna Jameson - and it has absolutely nothing to do with the possibility of it being called advertising. And what that said, the day I decide to quit Wikipedia, I'll be putting Jenna up for a bit of going-away fun :) Raul654 (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What about Wikipedia (currently demoted), was that ever on the list? Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 04:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think navel-gazing on the main page is appropriate. Raul654 (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, and I don't think advertisements are (even with sources). Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 05:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I can undertand an article on McDonalds or IBM because they are global companies that have had a significant cultural impact. This is nothing but blatant advertisement. I am sure if I wrote an article on a local music store in sydney, Australia it would quickly be removed. 203.3.197.249 (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as IBM or McDonald's or Baby Gender Mentor are worthy of featured status, so is this one, since it meets notability. Being a smaller, lesser known company than IBM doesn't disqualify an article from meeting the criteria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The article may be featured, but to be placed on the main page should require different criteria - much like "in the news" does. --Teggles (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting, for example, that only DNA, Monty Hall problem, Titanium and Society of the Song Dynasty are elibible for the mainpage, but never Wii Sports, Nine Inch Nails, Lord of the Universe or The General in His Labyrinth? No music, films, books or companies, only science and history, I guess ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not being suggested at all. What I would suggest is that this advertisement, I mean "article", has no place in an "encyclopedia" full stop, let alone be a featured article! Anyway, I am off to write articles on every store I know of to give them some much needed publicity. 203.3.197.249 (talk) 05:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

How come when I made a similar comment in relation to the advertisement for Nintendo's game in the TFA the other day my comments were repeatedly deleted and I was then blocked for edit warring? I guess Nintendo "representatives" (I put it no higher) have more time to monitor Wikipedia. Dr Spam (MD) (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To my sensibilities, this reads like a blatant advertorial, which I suspect is the source of most of the referenced material that isn't attributed to staff or the company web-site. Hardly neutral! Of course I may be wrong on this, but my view is that, as it is, the "article" doesn't belong on wikipedia, let alone the front page. Special:Contributions/124.177.41.132|124.177.41.132]] (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether it is true or not is irrelevant. When you watch TV and are told that the car has 5 airbags and does 0-60 in 5 seconds, that's factual as well. The point is the most of this information is boring. Elderly Instruments, while undoubtably a great guitar shop, is not really worthy of such a lengthy manifesto, in much the same way that my auto-biography is not worthy of an entry 207.164.21.130 (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Advert Template

I added the advert template and it was reverted. I added it because this article reads to me like one of the most non NPOV articles I have ever read on WP. How this got through FAC I have no idea. It seems from all the comments above that I am not the only person thinking this. How many people have to express alarm before enough of a consensus is obvious to have the advert template stick? I am not moving for deletion, I was adding it so that someone might attempt to re-write it so as not to make people immediately think 'advert', which is clearly the case now. Mfield (talk) 04:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Engaging the wording at WP:ADVERT, WP:NPOV, WP:NN and WP:COMPANY to provide specific examples of what you consider to unsourced or advertorial wording would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In light of the new information (see below) that at least one of the main sources used is a magazine sponsored by the business, I'm putting the template back up. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 15:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that all the images on this page were supplied by Elderly themselves. Mfield (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A magazine sponsor is anyone who advertises in the magazine. Is it any surprise to you that the biggest supplier of bluegrass instruments advertises in a Bluegrass magazine? That doesn't mean their articles can't be used as sources. Also, the images are a non-issue. I asked for free images and they complied - that's what we're advised to do in the various pages that give advice on finding free images. I'm removing the template because you're not really discussing anything, you're just making general recreational complaints. --Laser brain (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure that's what I'm doing. Funny then how everybody seems to agree with me except the guy who wrote the article and the guy who put it on the main page. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 16:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are the templates not currently on the page? There appears to be overwhelming objections to some of the content of the article if you look at this entire talk page. There are only two people (the people who wrote the article I presume) against all the objections. This strikes me as consensus that there are problems in the article...at the very least there is a lack of consensus that the article is neutral. It is not acceptable to block an advert template in this situation. 18.96.5.174 (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's just proving how this article underwent no serious consensus editing in the first place. Block everyone who disagrees. Everyone's out of step but me. Maybe this will result in its deletion, which ironically I was actually trying to avoid by putting the advert template in to ensure it simply got re-written. Mfield (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

POV

"Elderly is known nationally for the quality and expertise of its repair technicians," Shouldn't this line have something like "according to....." at the beginning. That does sound advert-ish and positive. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I too am bothered that this is a featured article. Here are some more problematic quotes:

• "Today it is recognized internationally for its services and products" - In what way is it recognized internationally? Canadians have heard of it? This is pure sales brochure pap.
• "In addition to retail and repair services, Elderly Instruments is frequently noted as a center of local music culture, particularly for bluegrass and 'twang' music." - Awkward and POV. How frequently? Noted by whom? Noted how?
• "Elderly Instruments has become popular and internationally known due to its attention to folk music niche markets,[3] its reputation as a repair shop,[8] its selection of vintage instruments,[7] and its position as a large Martin guitar dealer.[2]" - This is cited, but doesn't explain what is meant by the vague phrase 'popular and internationally known'. Classic peacock terms.
• "Elderly provides a nationally known appraisal service for vintage instruments."
• "Some of the instructors, such as jazz guitarist Ray Kamalay, are nationally renowned musicians." - More peacock terms. (Also: Why only 'nationally' and not 'internationally'?)
• "Twang music is ... gaining popularity in Lansing and other cities." - Evidence? How popular is it?

This phrase "nationally known" pops up again and again. To me, that phrase suggest that everyone in the nation knows about it which irks me as an American who never heard of this store before it made it to the Wikipedia main page. It's true I'm no folk music aficionado, but the article is making some pretty strong and bogus claims. Then again, I don't read esteemed national publications like Bluegrass Now and Lansing Business Monthly either. --D. Monack | talk 07:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

For all the reasons above, I can't understand how this article made it to FA status and the front page.--Varano (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What sucks about this, is that the article uses a lot of printed works, which makes it difficult to check to what extent those claims are justified, and how we could improve them. - Face 09:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it reads rather like an advertisment and came here to mention it as soon as I saw it on the Main Page. I'll have a look and try to get some actual evidence later. D. Monack gave a pretty good summary. --Tombomp (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that this article uses vague statements too frequently for an FA. Had I been pro-active and involved myself in the FAR I would have opposed it's inclusion. The vague nature of the article, gives it a less than encyclopaedic feel - it is my opinion that the FAR could have been more strict in this case. This is not the first time I have thought this about a FA, but this is the first time where the nature of the content should have ensured that the FAR process was more demanding than it was. If I have misunderstood a part of the process I would like to know, but I feel the points raised above combined with the less than peer reviewed quality of the referenced articles relegates this to a GA at most. User A1 (talk)

An example of such problematic referencing

Elderly Instruments has become popular and internationally known due to its attention to folk music niche markets,[3] its reputation as a repair shop,[8] its selection of vintage instruments,[7] and its position as a large Martin guitar dealer.[2]

The popularity of the company is a difficult to measure value and is unlikely to be reliably attributable to any particular source, such attributions will at most be speculative in nature. Certainly not by magazines such as Catalog Age Musical Merchandise Review or Lansing Business Monthly. I feel the review process has failed to evaluate the reliability, and more importantly the authority of the attributed sources and their capacity to make such claims User A1 (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

More,

In response to questions about his strategy for dealing with larger retailers such as Guitar Center and American Musical Supply, which also operate large mail order and Internet businesses, Werbin states that he has learned to operate on small margins and serve niche markets to stay competitive

This is a problem, as it purely cites anecdotal evidence by the owner, who is unlikely to give a clear and unbiased view of the competitiveness of the business - does small margins and niche markets make the group competitive? We don't know. Furthermore this could be stated by any small business in the retail & repair sector and still hold (to the degree it does).

Guitarists routinely send valuable instruments to Elderly for complete restoration or other major work such as refinishing and refretting. Many notable guitarists are patrons of Elderly.[8]

Who are these many notable guitarists? Why is this not included in the article?

The company also performs an "inspection and setup" service for new and used instruments, which ensures good workmanship, neck angle, fret integrity, properly working hardware and electronics, and other adjustments. Setup of new instruments ensures proper intonation.[16]

Checking for intonation should be pretty standard in any construction of instruments, as is ensuring the device works. This is hardly a unique nor notable for a guitar repair shop. One could replace the words "instruments" with, for example, "car" or "computer", modify "neck angle and fret integrity" then change "intonation" to "functioning" and describe almost any repair situation - it is not clear how this adds to the description of the business nor what makes it encyclopaedic.

I should stop now, the more I read this the more irked I become. User A1 (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I'm still at it. Category:FA-Class_Companies_articles has some good examples of what an FA should be, particularly BAE Systems - from a superficial reading it seems well written, avoiding of peacock terms and concise and precise. User A1 (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to say that, although I disagree with these particular criticisms, it's certainly better to raise the issue here, in the talk page, rather than slapping "db-advert" on the FA or what have you. DS (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Like A1, I am concerned with the preponderance of peacock and prestige terms and otherwise unencyclopedic tone. There also appears to be, for all intents and purposes guitar cruft, in this main page FA. Selected quotes and corresponding criticism:

"frequently noted as a center of local music culture" (P)

"Werbin participated in a lively local music scene that included many collaborations and "open mic nights" at local venues. It was through those experiences that Werbin developed his appreciation for the wide variety of instruments the musicians were playing, as well as the various types of music that fall under the folk music genre." (T)

"popular and internationally known due to its attention to folk music" (P)

"In 2007 alone, Elderly sold more than 16,000 instruments." (T)

"Elderly is known nationally for the quality and expertise of its repair technicians" (P)

The Martin J40-M episode strikes me as fancruft or trivia.

"Guitarists routinely send valuable instruments" (P)

"Many notable guitarists are patrons" (P)

"Elderly provides a nationally known appraisal service for vintage instruments" (P)

"Their appraisal services have been noted in national media, such as The Music and Sound Retailer, as being among the best in the industry."

"Elderly began selling hand-picked records" (T)

"this is due to the belief that customers will become more interested in the music after making an audio purchase and then in turn by a musical instrument." (T)

"The incident was well-publicized" (P)

Referencing a non-notable periodical (Noise) to cite the store as an "epicenter" of a non-notable form of American folk music.

A university, music group, or any other article would have justifiably been shot down immediately with this unencylopedic tone. I read through the FAC and these issues were brought up by User:Malleus Fatuorum, responded to by User:Laser brain, but ultimately unchanged before being supported and promoted. I'm not going to be a dick and nominate for FAR, but given the issues I and other editors have with the tone of the article, I don't believe this should be an FA much less on main page. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Another problem is the section about "twang". There is no Wikipedia article about this genre and the only source about it is the Lansing State Journal. There's no mention what bands perform it. "Current and former employees" isn't cited. No mention of what other works and news outlets cite it as "important to the folk music industry" or a "folk music mecca". --Tombomp (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Tombomp, I don't think something needs its own Wikipedia article to be mentioned in another article. The Noise article is the source for that entire paragraph, including "current and former employees". I didn't mention anyone specifically because they aren't really notable on their own. The New York Times is the source for Elderly's importance to the industry, as noted in the article text: "The New York Times and other works cite Elderly as important to the folk music industry..." and cited to the NYT article about Elderly. --Laser brain (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean that everything without an article is non-notable automatically, it's just an indication it's not well known at all. I realise the NYT referred to it, my problem is with the nebulous "other works/news outlets". --Tombomp (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The main problem, apart from this reading like a glowing advertisement, is that it's just badly written and uninteresting. As to the issue of peacockery, I've gone ahead and cut out at least some of the excessive uses of adjectives like "premiere, large, frequent, best", etc. As to the latter, there's no cure -- this seems like some randomly selected article that doesn't represent Wikipedia's content well. I'm sure Elderly Instruments is important for its employees and customers, but doesn't do much for general Wikipedia readership. Was there really no other article in the FA firmament that might have been selected? --68.99.77.157 (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Another POV: the article is written from a USA perspective. The most flagrant example is the numerous 'national' or 'nationally', most of them have been removed now. But there's still a lack of worldwide perspectives. I agree that this article should not have been featured, we have difficult issues now. Cenarium (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"In addition to a printed catalog, Elderly sends lists of available vintage instruments to subscribers in the U.S. and several other countries by mail and e-mail. The Elderly web site, which offers both new and used instruments, is also updated regularly by a full-time employee to reflect the current inventory" That sounds like it was written by an employee or someone with direct access to one. Its inside information with no citation. Even if the information didn't come that way, that's how it sounds and that's bad. Mfield (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Covered by the citation given to Remson. E-mail me if you'd like a full-text copy of the article. --Laser brain (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The second sentence just sounds like marketing speak. I mean all sales companies update their websites to reflect what they are selling, does this 'fact' merit inclusion in the article? Mfield (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the idea in the source was that a lot of smaller businesses just put up "general" web sites and it might not be clear exactly what they have in stock on a given day. Remson remarked that Elderly has a full-time person that updates the site with their exact inventory every day. Do you have an alternate wording suggestion? --Laser brain (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be removed completely, this just isn't a fact that would be mentioned unless you were promoting the business model. Its not unique or interesting or relevant to the actual business of the company that the article is covering. Mfield (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine. --Laser brain (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Notable

Really? I don't give a damn about this, I've never heard of it, I don't want to know about it, there's nothing in this article that interests me, I'm never going to go there, and I haven't learnt anything of use. And I like music shops. Harriellie (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Not very constructive, but I also think that this article has a lot of problems, the featured status is questionable. Not that I'm opposed to featured status for companies (BAE Systems is very good). But the article lacks citations and has POV issues, however notability under our guidelines is clear. Cenarium (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Cenarium, can you give me an example of something you feel is uncited? The whole article is covered by the citations given - maybe I can clarify something for you. --Laser brain (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation problems have been raised by other editors, I echo their feelings. The article has 25 references, which is minimal for a FA, and insufficient in this case, particularly because the subject of the article is a company. Cenarium (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, can you provide an example of something you feel is uncited? The existing citations cover every word of the article. --Laser brain (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is just as much one of source quality as quantity. Typically smaller, niche-oriented publications have a greater confluence of journalistic content and advertisement than what is expected of larger, more reliable publications. Unfortunately my subscriptions to both Bluegrass Now, The Music and Sound Retailer and Lansing Business Monthly ran out a while ago, so let me ask you this: does Elderly advertise in any of these publications? Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 15:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually scrap that - a quick look at the Bluegrass Now website tells you that Elderly is in fact one of the magazine's "sponsors". As they say, you dance with the one who brung you. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 15:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I used the sources that were available. They all have an established editorial process and are acceptable per WP:RS. I have no idea where Elderly advertises, but if Toyota advertises in Car and Driver magazine does that mean we can't use an article in that magazine about a Toyota? --Laser brain (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt you wrote the best article the sources allowed. I personally think it's a very good article, but I don't think it should ever have been featured on the main page. Most publications rely on advertising to a greater or lesser extent, but as I said, there's a difference between the reliability of The Daily Telegraph and Bluegrass Now. I'm very sceptical to using a journal with such close ties to the business as a main source. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 15:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt either the quality of the article or the intentions of the main author. The length of the article is very well-balanced concisering the obscurity of the topic, and so are the references. I'm rather anti-business myself, but I do like these types of smally, dedicated companies (not to mention bluegrass, country and those wonderful banjos). However, it is absolutely correct to consider this a de facto advertisement, and the issue of featuring these types of articles is potentially very problematic. Concerning the obscurity of the article I can't help getting basically the same feeling I had when ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion got on the mainpage. I really hope this isn't part of a wider trend of making a point about how magically, fantastically, superbly different we are as an openly non-conformist encyclopedia.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to chime in here, I previously lived in Michigan, and Elderly was well known throughout the region at least. Musicians liked them and their work. Having said that, they probably got more attention following the Gibson copy debate than anything else. It is mentioned in this article, but not clearly pointed to. When I clicked into the article from the main page I actually thought it was not going to be covered because the TOC didn't clearly indicate the section. Something like "Gibson controversy" or "Critiques of Business Practices" might serve better. Having said all that, nice to see little ol' Lansing make a splash. Quine (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement

It appears that Laser Brain feels a strong emotional attachment to this article. It's good article really and a lot of work must have gone into making it. Yet, Elderly may be a completely perfect act of God but without God or the Pope saying that it is... it's POV to say that it is. --65.5.204.50 (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify a little, for example, there is no definition of large. Large by volume? Large by sales? Either still needs a citation of some sort. I'd even go so far as to accept a Large by love if a guitar magazine readership poll ranked it #1.--65.5.204.50 (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Statements are not required to be cited in the lead since the lead summarizes statements cited later in the full text. Please see the Instrument Sales heading for more detail and citations for the Martin statement. --Laser brain (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Potentially controversial statements, even in the lead, Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations, may require citation, this should be discussed, not simply reverted. Cenarium (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of that going on. Editors who have had a hand in creating this article should not be reverting edits that are trying to improve NPOV. That's the whole point. You don't have an NPOV on this article either! Mfield (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that major wording changes should be discussed before being made. The only wording change I reverted was one that removed the very statement that confers notability of the subject. --Laser brain (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There has been plenty of discussion on this Laser Brain. I think all but one other contributor to this talk page have indicated they have problems with the types of sources and the tone in certain sections. It is clear that you are stalling the criticism unilaterally. You did a great job assembling the article, but being a featured article, it seems that most people have concerns that need to be addressed. I encourage you to stop reverting the edits. Dwr12 (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been willing to discuss and correct valid article concerns since day one. Some editors made helpful edits today. I even reached out ([1], [2], and [3]) to editors who provided reasonable lists of concerns with an action plan to address them. --Laser brain (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems like some people are just really against having company articles on the front page. This is nowhere near POV compared to other articles on Wikipedia. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to embroil myself into this, but I'd just like to comment on Wackymacs' comment — if this article is going to be compared to other articles, then it would be best to compare it to other FAs, not just any article since, yes, there are indeed other articles that are far more POV. Gary King (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wackymacs never excluded FAs. He is just comparing this article to Wikipedia in general. And remember, FAs, expecially the older ones, aren't always perfect, and shouldn't be used as the model for a perfect article. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's certainly easier to make a point when comparing one article to any article that merely exists, rather than one that has at some point passed some test. If someone has an issue with an existing FA, then the option to bring it to WP:FAR is always available. Gary King (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I am fully aware of FAR. But I prefer to try and write more FAs instead of trying to demote them. And it is indeed easier to make a point when comparing one article to any article that merely exists, rather than one that passed FA. All I said was that FAs aren't the God of articles, and it is just as legitimate to compare to an A or a GA, or even a strong B. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This is slowly veering to a discussion that should be moved to WT:FAC rather than here, but before that happens, I'd just like to chirp that there is nothing wrong to demote FA articles when they no longer adhere to the current criteria. We aren't harming the articles by any means, which some have considered it. If you look at some FA articles but remove from your mind that it is an FA, then they may actually look more like B articles. Gary King (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article#FA_procedure --Tombomp (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected?

Now someone has protected the page when there's clearly a fair body of opinion that this article has some issues regarding NPOV and advert status. Protected by someone with some history of reverting other changes too so that's hardly objective. People with any history of editing a page should not be protecting it - they should at least make the request to another non involved admin. Mfield (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's on ANI, Wikipedia:ANI#Problems_with_today.27s_featured_article. Cenarium (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Raul has now unprotected, but with a strict enjoinder not to re-add the advert tag which I think is completely appropriate. If folks keep re-adding that they risk a block and the page will just be re-protected again (it's not about whether the tag is right or wrong - I think it's wrong personally - but this article did pass the FA process and labeling it an "advert" even if it has advertisement overtones is not really acceptable while this thing is on the main page). Discussion of the article and its ad-like nature (or lack thereof) is of course fine, as are constructive edits to the article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Front page ad

Wow, how do I get my business on the front page? I didn't think Wikipedia did advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokeshow (talk • contribs) 17:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A hefty deposit to my sekrit slush fund. Raul654 (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No wonder many people don't take this site seriously, then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokeshow (talk • contribs) at 17:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Putting this on the MP was a small misstep between all those other great articles recently. It's a mistake, and at least it's nothing compared to the embaressment of two months ago. Cheers, Face 20:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummm.. this is an ad

this point has been made but please clean up and put a big signy thingy saying it is an ad please [[Eddabed (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC) ]]

Just adding my disappointment at this ad

This should be deleted immediately. It adds no more to global knowledge than the flyers I get in my letterbox every day ljd (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, this is not an advertisment, but rather a perfectly legitimate encyclopediac article. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be encyclopedic, how? Where in the article are the actual facts (rather than opinions) about this business, such as: 1) impact the economy; 2) historical context; 3) unique innovation; 4) social relevance -- beyond what any other semi-successful local retailer of specialty merchandise might have? (i.e. antique dealer, comic book shop, gallery). The article makes nebulous claims of being a "locus" for folk music, and an "epicenter of twang." The substantiation is single, passing mention in a New York Times article about amateur group singing: "It also has a famous guitar store, Elderly Instruments, a folk-music locus..." There are a bazillion other similar businesses across the US-- so far as I know, Wikipedia isn't a business directory, however.--68.99.77.157 (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I and no doubt others are eagerly awaiting an answer to these questions. Until that happens, Elderly is a local shop, claims of national significance are complete WP:BALLS, twang is not a genre, this is an advert. --86.142.247.17 (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on policy, but I've been very concerned that ads would destroy the quality of wikipedia, and this, on the front page, seems like an ad to me. I vote to remove it. (jasper jon (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

The front page needs to be regenerated - this article's intro is now far removed from the last time the page was generated. Mfield (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I read that Bimbo Wales rewrote Novell's article in exchange for money. I wonder if there was a similar arrangement here? <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7291382.stm>--Under-roads hreem (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It boggles my mind that advertising like this winds up right on the front page. Yes the article is very detailed and properly wikified but holy crap I spend hours each week flagging articles for being advertisements and this is the result? This is demoralizing. Am I supposed to only try and keep out the crappy ads but keep the ones that successfully masquerade as real articles? Rob Banzai (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Twang/Alt Country

If Elderly really is the 'epicenter' of twang as quoted in this article, why is there no mention of it in the Alt-country article. Some kind of linkage to/from other articles would no doubt help mitigate the feelings that this article is overblowing the importance of the store in general? Mfield (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This issue definitely needs some clarification from someone with the relevant knowledge. There are several issues. First of all, "twang" seems to be a rather imprecise term, and after a bit of Googling it seems that some completely reject this term. Is it the same thing as alternative country? I'm not really sure, but twang seems to be a term used to describe any sort of country that has some sort of rock influence - i.e. it is very vague. Significantly the term "twang" is not even used in the alt country article, which does list a bunch of alternative names. I'm not even sure that we should say alt country is another name for twang, however I plead complete ignorance about this topic.

Additionally, I have to question whether or not Lansing, MI (much less this record store) is really an "epicenter" for twang music, whatever that is (I find about 4,500 Google hits for "twang music" and only 43 for "twang music" Lansing). We have exactly one source which says that the music shop is an epicenter for that kind of music. Given that twang music seems to be an ill-defined term, that there is evidence that it is present outside of Lansing, that there is no particular evidence that Lansing is a hub for this kind of music (at least that I could find), and that the only source that calls Elderly the "epicenter" of twang is a local (and therefore likely biased) source, I think there are some real questions here.

The first paragraph in the "Twang and other folk music" section needs better sourcing and elucidation and possibly a rewrite. It might be a simple matter of deleting the "epicenter" claim since that is highly questionable.

I have not participated in the FA process so shouldn't necessarily be the one to criticize, but this is the kind of thing that should have been discussed there. Right now our main page article is claiming that this music store is the epicenter of a genre of music - a claim which is questionable and not sufficiently sourced.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all of that - it worries me that this big claim is being made by a local publication and is not backed up in any broader media. I have just done a fair amount of editing of this article though, so if someone else wants to take on the whole twang issue? Mfield (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from the article creator or someone with knowledge of this kind of music. At this point I'm not comfortable making a judgment about what to do, I'm just very wary of the claim being made.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I won't be much help on the Twang issue. I just summarized what the source said. I did do a journal search (Lexis Nexis, etc.) and did not find any other reliable sources discussing the very definition of "twang" music or who is playing it. The only real article I found was the Noise article where the author seemed to have dug into the genre. Maybe that means the genre isn't well-defined yet. What I thought was notable was that a serious journalist took the time to write about how the genre is growing out of Lansing and Elderly in particular. --Laser brain (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added an improve citation template to that section to encourage it being looked into. It certainly needs more than one local publication to merit such wording. Mfield (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And I've removed it and replaced it with a more specific tag (which may or may not be in the right place, please move as needed); if you question a specific piece of text or specific citation, please tag that individually rather than unnecessarily tagging an entire section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No that's good, not all of us can memorize the 5 million possible ways of doing a similar thing on WP though :) In reality the whole section will have to go though if that one source turns out to be unreliable, the whole twang epicenter thing seems to be based on this one publication. Mfield (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember them all either; I keep a link to the individual (inline) templates in the userbox on my userpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice work

Kudos to those who worked on this. I wish all company articles could be FAs. Wrad (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, some of us are working to fix it, it's already a lot better than it was hours ago. Mfield (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, very nice article and brings back memories of a pal in the mid '60s who had an early Martin. All good. .. dave souza, talk 23:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Vocal Minority

It seems that a vocal minority holds more sway then the majority on Wikipedia. Whilst this occurs Wikipedia will never be a true Encyclopedia, but a collection of articles, being held back by a vocal few - what a shame. 203.3.197.249 (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)