|WikiProject Textile Arts||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Why is this a redirect for card-making machine. Wouldn't that be a machine that makes cards, not the processing of fiber? Loggie 02:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Can you expand on your question, please? I don't understand what you're asking. Noisy | Talk 02:33, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
- If you search for "card-making machine" you get taken here. That doesn't make sense to me. Loggie 02:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Right. Card making machine was incorrect. It should have been card teeth making machine, which is still pretty clumsy. The card teeth making machine is an invention of Oliver Evans, and was included in the incorrect form in the Timeline of invention. I've set things right now. Noisy | Talk 12:26, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
Other languages: I followed the links for the other languages, but they go to Phishing and not wool carding as per this article - so I removed these inter-wiki links. Rklawton 02:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
A recent change that made only spelling "corrections" also introduced spelling errors. All of this change was a conversion from American spelling to English spelling. Such changes seem a waste of time and energy given that the meaning of the corrected words (with one exception) by either spelling is unambiguous.
The one change however that did apparently change meaning: meter changed to metre. The sentence (with spelling changes intact) is:
- "Raw fibre, placed on the in-feed table or conveyor is moved to the the nippers which restrain and metre the fiber onto the swift."
The original spelling (meter) intended this meaning:
- meter vt to supply in measured or regulated amount (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary).
Definitions that I could find on the intarwebs for metre did not include that definition but, rather, provided definitions for poetic and musical meter, for instruments that measure phenomena, and for the SI unit of length.
Perhaps it is better to refrain from making spelling changes simply for the sake of making the article look like one's own tongue.
I have revised this down, the criteria say
An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and may require further reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.
Weak in Many ares: Text concentrates only on the craft aspect, and little on the industrial importance. It concentrates on wool- rather than cotton and other fibres. There are no statistics or talk about the health and fire implications in the blowing room. Sections missing on card dressing.