Talk:Ballpoint pen/Archive 2

End of history section - "went on sale at the end of the year"

At the end of the history section, it appears that some content was added before the section describing that the pens went on sale at the end of the year in Britain and by the next year in Europe. No date is given. This orphan needs to be rewritten for clarity or combined with some other part of this section. Phluorine (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prining ink as incentive

This: ""Bíró had noticed that inks used in newspaper printing dried quickly, leaving the paper dry and smudge free. ""

is nonsense, because then newspaper printing was done with carbon black low viscosity inks.

If that story is true, Biro might have been impressed by the high viscosity (paste-like) inks used

in Offset printing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.246.217 (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The manufacture of economical, reliable ballpoint pens arose from experimentation, modern chemistry, and the precision manufacturing capabilities of 20th century technology. Many patents worldwide are testaments to failed attempts at making these pens commercially viable and widely available. The ballpoint pen went through several failures in design throughout its early stages. The first patent on a ballpoint pen[2] was issued on 30 October 1888, to John Loud,[3] a leather tanner, who was attempting to make a writing instrument that would be able to write on his leather products, which then-common fountain pens could not do. Loud's pen had a small rotating steel ball, held in place by a socket. Although it could be used to mark rough surfaces such as leather, as Loud intended, it proved to be too coarse for letter writing and was not commercially viable. In the period between 1904 and 1946 particularly, alternatives or improvements to the fountain pen were invented. Slavoljub Eduard Penkala invented a solid-ink fountain pen in 1907, a German inventor named Baum took out a ballpoint patent in 1910, and yet another ballpoint pen device was patented by Van Vechten Riesburg in 1916. In these inventions, the ink was placed in a thin tube whose end was blocked by a tiny ball, held so that it could not slip into the tube or fall out of the pen. The ink clung to the ball, which spun as the pen was drawn across the paper. These proto-ballpoints did not deliver the ink evenly. If the ball socket were too tight, the ink did not reach the paper. If it were too loose, ink flowed past the tip, leaking or making smears. Many inventors tried to fix these problems, but without commercial success.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.90.135.11 (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"As art medium" photo replacement & all photo recomposition

!With all due apologies if i've done something i shouldn't've done... i took it upon myself to go ahead and remove a photo of "ballpoint art" which i found to be inadequate for inclusion (particular apolgies to that artist!). There was no notability to that prior art image. i replaced it with a photo of a currently active ballpoint pen artist whom is also noted within the Ballpoint pen artwork article. i have also solicited image-data & permission-for-use from all of the artists noted in that aricle and have begun inserting them as i see fit in relation to the artworks, the artists, and various articles. i will take great care in doing so, but if these actions are unproper, someone please educate me.Penwatchdog (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write coming

I've just completed archiving/editing talk page. Now preparing new sources for rewrite.Penwatchdog (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Page Critique - Ballpoint Pen - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballpoint_pen

The Wikipedia page for the ballpoint pen provides a description of the ballpoint pen, including what it is, how it works, and a detailed history. Overall, the article is well written and serves its purpose.

The sources for the most part are legitimate. One that jumps out as questionable is a Hungarian website. Since I do not speak or understand that language, I have absolutely no idea what the contents of that site contain; let alone what was pulled from that site as a source. For an English article, it would make a lot more sense for all of the sources to be in English, at the very least so they can be verified by the reader who is utilizing the Wikipedia page. Other than that, the sources are very diverse and include mediums such as journals, books, and websites. The journals and books are all legitimate, and the websites are as well (except for the Hungarian site, which very well could be legitimate, but there is no way to tell).

The illustrations and graphics on the page are excellent. The fact that they are all relevant is a big plus. Each illustration includes a short, descriptive caption that is to the point. They are also all properly placed within the page, relatively adjacent to the relevant text. I was not left wondering what any of the illustrations are or what they are related to, which is a big plus.

There does not appear to be any illegitimate or frivolous contributions to the page. All information is properly cited, which leaves no room for frivolous contributions.

The Wikipedia page differs from a standard encyclopedia entry, in that it is more descriptive, and contains more specific information. The page also contains information that is complementary to the topic, such as the section on ballpoint pen uses in everyday life and the section on art. Again, I do not feel these sections take away from the article because they are relevant, and not too overbearing. They do not veer too far off topic. A conventional encyclopedia on the other hand simply gives a brief overview, definition, and history of the pen as a general item. Also, a conventional encyclopedia groups the ball point pen in the much more general category of “pen”.

In conclusion, the ballpoint pen Wikipedia page is well done. It provides the necessary and relevant information, as well as some complementary information on the topic, without overloading the page with too much information. It strikes a very good balance. The only improvement would be either delete or replace the source which is not in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-13ckuhn (talk • contribs) 00:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good feedback & welcome commentary. I'm slowly returning to activities in writing/editing, which will include self-imposed policing of these ballpoint-related articles. I've just made some minor visual adjustments to this page, specifically deleting a second magnified-close-up of a ballpoint tip; With all due respect & thanks to that contributor, one magnified ballpoint nib is quite enough I think! Currently assembling more panoramic coverage/referencing than is currently noted, and hope to amend soon with enough to NIX the 'primary source' box! Penwatchdog (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting questionable material

I've investigated above-questioned (Hungarian?) source and the paragraph in which it appears. The source shows no relation to ballpoint pens at all, nor reference to any of the information preceding it, currently as follows:

"In the period between 1904 and 1946 particularly, alternatives or improvements to the fountain pen were invented. Slavoljub Eduard Penkala invented a solid-ink fountain pen in 1907, a German inventor named Baum took out a ballpoint patent in 1910, and yet another ballpoint pen device was patented by Van Vechten Riesburg in 1916. In these inventions, the ink was placed in a thin tube whose end was blocked by a tiny ball, held so that it could not slip into the tube or fall out of the pen. The ink clung to the ball, which spun as the pen was drawn across the paper. These proto-ballpoints did not deliver the ink evenly. If the ball socket were too tight, the ink did not reach the paper. If it were too loose, ink flowed past the tip, leaking or making smears. Many inventors tried to fix these problems, but without commercial success."

I conclude the following claims appear to be vandalism which managed to go unnoticed as "facts":

Penkala's achievements are related to the fountain pen and solid ink, and no direct connection to the development of ballpoints can be found.
"German inventor" named "Baum" cannot be found at all, and doesn't appear on wikipedia's own "List of German inventors."
"Van Vechten Riesburg" does not appear in any of myriad ballpoint history search results.

Unless someone can substantiate otherwise, I'll be deleting the three claims within 48 hours of this notice. I'll do this prior and apart from the article re-write under construction and viewable at this [page]. Material within the paragraph which can be sourced will flow into the re-write. Also, assistance, advice and comments are welcome toward completing the rewrite, Thanks.Penwatchdog (talk) 06:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reference you asked for is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/dna/place-lancashire/plain/A993378

and here: https://www.asme.org/about-asme/history/landmarks/topics-m-z/manufacturing---2/-236-birome-ballpoint-pen-collection-(1938-1948) I wasn't able to find the original patents online, though. There's some good original material in the Times archive and in the Popular Science archive on the invention and marketing of the ballpoint pen at the time it was introduced. I've never had the time to add them to this article. There's also a good article on the ballpoint pen here: http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/ballpen.htm More sources: http://files.asme.org/asmeorg/Communities/History/Landmarks/10389.pdf http://www.design-technology.info/inventors/page13.htm I always thought it would be awesome to add some of the original patent drawings, but I never found the time to do that either. As far as I can tell, patent drawings are by definition, public domain, so that's not an issue.

It's kind of a struggle for me to keep original research out of this article, since I worked on ballpoint ink development for Papermate for several years, and I know a lot that hasn't been published. I think your rewrite looks great so far. Bobzchemist (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That Penkala reference was left over from the previous article, before I rewrote some of it. I wasn't sure enough about it's truthfulness or not to delete it.Bobzchemist (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS Bob-z-c. I've bookmarked the above ballpoint refs. Some I'd since come across, myself. Will make use of others where necessary. Yes, as you've noted, (lack of) TIME is the major barrier of trying to keep active here! And, YES, I've also noticed as time goes by: un-sourced leftovers wind up as part of the bedrock if no ones paying attention. First: rewrite. Second: keep up with policing the page. The article will soon be fully-sourced; I'll begin revising in a few waves, keeping strict guidelines for brevity, importance, and matters of unique interest. All are welcome to tidy-up when I'm done! Ongoing thanks.Penwatchdog (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]