Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Sholes and Glidden typewriter/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sholes and Glidden typewriter

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like for this article to ultimately reach FA status. Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. The GA review mentioned that there might be some focus and tone issues, so comments or suggestions on those aspects would also be welcome.

Thanks, Эlcobbola talk 14:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
    • Only concern is ref 2, the Oden, that's a published work that's being hosted online, so it should be formatted like a book with just a convenience link to the online hosting.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 19:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit (talk · contribs)

  • This is a wonderful article - it flows well and is impeccably written. I really can't find anything wrong with it - what a pleasure to read! The only sentence that stuck out at me was "Before the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA) established the first typing school in 1881,[58] women were trained by the manufacturer and provided to customers along with the machine." - This sounds like they are selling women. Awadewit (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, in a roundabout way... I added "optionally" to try to tone it down a bit. Unfortunately, the women were, at least initially, seen more as appliances than people. (In 1870, there were 7 women stenographers in the US; there just weren't women in the clerical workplace at the time so, especially with attitudes of the time, people didn't know what to make of them in that setting.) Эlcobbola talk 16:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: A most interesting article, generally well illustrated and presented. I have confined my comments to prose, which I believe could be improved in small ways; my suggestions are listed below. If any of these have already been raised by other reviewers, strike them out.

  • Lead
    • "After numerous revisions and several failed or short-lived attempts to manufacture the device, the machine was acquired by E. Remington and Sons..." A bit confusing. "Revisions" suggests that a machine was manufactured and then revised. But then we read of failed attempts to manufacture it. In what form did "the machine" exist that Remington's acquired? I think the problem is with the word "manufacture"; if you made this "finalize", the sentence becomes clear.
      • I was hoping to capture/summarize the manufacture in Chicago in 1868, the platen redesign in 1869 and the second manufacture in 1871 (which is also when the third platen was being developed). There seemed to have been a distinct back and forth before moving to Remington. The machine probably wouldn't be considered to have been "finalized" until around the time the No. 2 came about, if ever. I've removed discussion of the revisions to clear confusion and focus the sentence on the manufacturing aspect. Эlcobbola talk 14:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is "uppercase" linked on second rather than first mention? Incidentally, my dictionary gives "upper case" (two words) for the noun form, "upper-case" for the adjective form, but not "uppercase", even as a US variant.
      • I wanted a wikilink in the third paragraph to provide some degree of "visual balance" (I had thought the MOS recommended this at one point, but I'm likely wrong). Germans love compound words, so that's just bad English on my part. Wikilink moved and "uppercase" hyphenated. Эlcobbola talk 14:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "1800s" is a bit ambiguous (decade or century?) It would be clearer to refer to the late 19th century.
  • Early development
  • Refinement
    • "iteration" is a strange choice of word, normally used for repeated speech; I've not heard it used otherwise. "Version", perhaps?
    • Link stenographer
    • Perhaps we could have some information about the "hard use" that destroyed several machines?
      • The sources don't really elaborate, I'm afraid. Iles says he "reduced the machine to ruin", but not precisely how. Other sources mention only his harsh feedback or again fail to specify his actions beyond being "abusive". My supposition is that he used the machines continuously for long periods of time and wasn't exactly gentle while doing so; I worry that adding that, however, would be considered OR. Эlcobbola talk 15:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarify what Densmore was asking $50,000 for. The rights, presumably.
    • "infringed on a patent" - "on" is redundant
    • We hear no more of Washburn's patent. Did they pay him royalties, or change the design?
    • It's probably worth giving us a reminder of who Schwalbach is, e.g. "the clockmaker Schwalbach"
    • "In exchange for funding the ventures, Densmore had been acquiring an ever increasing interest in the typewriter." Clarify this means an increasing finacial share. Also, this is the first time you have referred to the machine as a "typewriter", thus. When did this become the machine's accepted name?
      • "Typewriter" is mentioned as "type-writer" in the second-to-last sentence in the Early Development section, which is the name used in the June 23, 1868 patent. I used typewriter here, however, in the hope of distinguishing the "larger concept". His interest in the venture as a whole (i.e. the intellectual property), not necessarily a physical manifestation thereof was increasing (although the interest no doubt also included rights to the hard assets). I've removed "in the typewriter", hoping that context will still make it clear what was happening. How does it read now? Эlcobbola talk 15:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Start of an industry
    • "This work was largely overseen..." Clarify this means the production work
    • "Remington lowered the price of the Sholes and Glidden (referred to in sales literature as the Remington No. 1) to $80" - were they still selling the No. 1 model after the No. 2 had been introduced?
    • "Clarence W. Seamens (Fairbanks & Company's former sales manager), Benedict and William O. Wychoff," These lists of names - they're a bit tedious to read, and I'd forgotten who "Benedict" was. Do we need such detail as "Fairbanks & Company's former sales manager"?
  • Design
    • Some of the information in the first paragraph, e.g. Thurner's cylinder, has been mentioned earlier. It may be possible to abbreviate some of the description here.
    • "held in place by a movable (to provide line and letter spacing) square frame." - very awkward placing of the parenthetical phrase, between adjective and noun.
    • Best, I think, to remove the parenthetical (platen), as this word is used also for a different part of the machine
  • QWERTY: No issues with this section, which is admirably clear. I've always wanted to know how this keyboard configuration came about; now I do.
  • Reception and legacy
    • "The Sholes and Glidden was the first commercially successful typewriter." If Sholes and Glidden refers to the Remington No. 1, is it correct to call it commercially successful? You refer, above, to sales being "lacklustre" before 1878, the year the Remington No. 2 was introduced and sales seemed to take off.
      • I had the same concern, but that's indeed how the sources attribute it. I assume selling several thousand was sufficent to be considered a success, as previous attempts at producing writing machines produced either no or very minimal sales. Эlcobbola talk 16:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Women and the typewriter
    • Link on "attractive women"? What's all that about?
    • Does "major consequence" need quotes? It's a commonplace phrase
      • It seems, to me anyway, to be a rather bold conclusion, so I've used the exact phrase the sources use ("major consequence"); the quotes are to avoid concerns about plagarism. I've moved the cite to directly after the phrase to clarify (hopefully) what is happening. Эlcobbola talk 16:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "women were trained by the manufacturer and provided to customers along with the machine." - and sales were lacklustre! Needs a mite rephrasing, perhaps?
      • I'm not sure I follow. Sales took off in 1878 with the Wyckoff, Seamans & Benedict marketing and the No. 2. The typewriting school opened in 1881, so there are several intervening years of "successful" sales for typists to have come from the manufacturer (and even the 4,000 machines sold by 1877 needed operators). Эlcobbola talk 16:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point was, jokingly, to highlight the impression given in the prose that the company was selling women along with their machines (Awadewit makes the same point). Sorry I didn't make that clear. You could say, "...women operators were trained by the manufacturer and their services provided to customers along with the machine." Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "or less of those paid to a man..." Should be "less than"
      • It's supposed to mean women's wages could have been 50%, 40%, etc. less than those paid to a man. Wouldn't "often 50% less than those paid to a man" imply just 50%, or even above (e.g. 60%, etc.)? Do you have any suggestions on how to rephrase it? Эlcobbola talk 16:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarify: gave them an economic advantage over men.

That's all I can find. I learned interesting stuff from this article which has future FAC written all over it. I shall be away from Wikipedia from Sunday until Friday 20 November, so if there's anything I've not made clear, please contact me fairly quickly. Good luck, Brianboulton (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few comments where there was uncertainty. You are not obliged to take them up. It's a fine article and I look forward to seeing it at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moni3

  • Interesting article. It seems my only comments (good for you) are to insert brief clauses to explain some terms like economies of scale and how it prevented a profit, escapement adapted from clockwork.
  • I feel somehow that my ignorance of inventing and such allows this scant review, but I found the article engaging and interesting. Thanks for asking me to review it. I probably would never have found it otherwise. --Moni3 (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments from Graham Colm

Very well-written and thoroughly engaging, this article is a joy to read. I got a little tired of being told three times what "blind writer" means and I found this sentence passive "Although also the result of a need to maintain manufacturing efficiencies with Remington's sewing machine division, these characteristics were meant to facilitate acceptance of the typewriter into the household". I think it would read better turned around, "These characteristics were meant...." And, will every reader know that the per capita income means each year, (on reflection does it?). Lastly, and no big deal at all, "typed" and "entered" are both used to mean the same thing—I wonder what this action would have been called at the time. Graham Colm Talk 20:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re per capita: it does and they won't, so I suggest link it. Brianboulton (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per capita means per person. Capita is accusative plural of caput (head) - think of the root of the English word "capital". When you talk about per capita income, it means the average (personal) income per person. Clarification would seem to be in order. Эlcobbola talk 13:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for having a look, Graham. I've made changes to address (hopefully) your comments. I've tried to use alternate wordings (e.g. going between "device" and "machine" to refer to the typewriter) to avoid getting too monotonous or repetitious. Perhaps references to "typed" or "entered" aren't frequent enough for this to really be an issue; do you think the article would be stronger with consistency? The Scientific American article from 10. August 1872 refers to the process merely as "writing". I hadn't paid attention to the verbiage used in other contemporary descriptions, however. Эlcobbola talk 14:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understood per capita in the sense of per person, but I thought it needed "per year" as well. Anyhow, you have changed this for the better already. Regarding "typed" and "entered", this is a completely trivial issue that made me curious as to what the action was originally called. I associate "type" with typewriters (yes I am that old) and "entered" with PCs. I would leave them in the article because, I agree, the variety is good. I think that passive sentence reads better now. As you know, I watch the FAC page and I look forward to seeing this article nominated. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm Talk 15:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Sholes_and_Glidden_typewriter/archive1&oldid=1088111468"