Talk:McCallum Bagpipes

A fact from McCallum Bagpipes appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 April 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in 2015, Kjell Lindgren played a plastic set of bagpipes made by McCallum Bagpipes on the International Space Station?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2018/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/McCallum Bagpipes.

Wikipedia

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 13 January 2018 by reviewer Vincent60030 (talk · contribs).

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Musical Instruments Low‑importance

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Musical InstrumentsWikipedia:WikiProject Musical InstrumentsTemplate:WikiProject Musical Instrumentsmusical instruments
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bagpipes Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bagpipes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bagpipes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BagpipesWikipedia:WikiProject BagpipesTemplate:WikiProject BagpipesBagpipes
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Better Sources

This section serves as a reference for me for articles to include that are more independent than the company's website:

http://www.konecranes.com/sites/default/files/2012-site-renewal-migration/files/attachments/way_up_magazine/way_up_1-2011/wup111_bagpipes_printable.pdf

Rey grschel (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another decent article, unfortunately as small as the konecranes article http://www.sfu.ca/university-communications/media-releases/2011/bagpipe-making-melds-tradition-with-technology.html Rey grschel (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article creation reattribution

Apparently, somewhere along the line, this article ended up getting its creation attributed to Vincent60030 even though I am the creator of the page and the one who requested its creation. I spent hours working on this and would like its creation reattributed to me, if that's even possible. I hope whoever finds this understands my frustration and helps me. Rey grschel (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved on IRC: Vincent60030 is credited as reviewer who accepted the draft, not as creator of the article. Huon (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rey grschel: That was weird, but thanks for pointing out and thanks for resolving it Huon :) @Huon: I'm not sure if the AFC reviewer helper bot that I'm using has caused the bug :/ VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 05:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The script indeed caused it, but it's not a bug: Template:AFC statistics lists submitted unreviewed drafts by submitter, but accepted or declined drafts by reviewer. To me that looks entirely deliberate. Huon (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The advert tag is added because several statements in this article as not sourced to independent reliable sources. I considered nominating it for AfD but it looks like there has been some media converage - much of it brief, but it looks like enough multiple sources that a case could be made for notability. However, this article is not based on the coverage in those sources. The claim that the company is the "highest volume" bagpipe manufacturer in the world is either uncited or cited to Konecranes - I have no idea what their interest in bagpipes is, but a magazine about the lifting business published by a crane parts company is not what we consider an independent source. Additionally "Vid I found about McCallum Bagpipe company" is most likely a WP:LINKVIO and I have to remove it because the source is unclear, the copyright status is unclear and it is mostly statements from the company itself. SeraphWiki (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim for them being the highest-volume bagpipe manufacturer in the world is from the Scotland on TV video that you've since removed because it's copyrighted content. I'll look for another independent source that says the same. Otherwise, isn't the article written completely neutrally?{{u|Rey_grschel}} {Talk} 17:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can be avoided by sticking to independent sources - interviews are not considered independent sources. Any publications that are based largely on press releases or statements from the company or its employees are also not considered independent. The issue with the Scotland on TV video, aside from the copyright issue, is that it is largely based on statements made by the company and its employees about themselves. It may be a neutral statement of the facts presented in the sources you used, but when the sources are not independent, the article usually present the company's view and descriptions of itself - what we don't want on Wikipedia are advertisements that give the appearance of being written neutrally independently. I would accept the SFU source for neutral statements of facts (some editors might argue that the author of the source is unknown) - A neutral statement of fact would be "The company employs over 30 people and produces 30-40 sets of bagpipes per week." But the article uses language like "allowed for McCallum Bagpipes to manufacture bagpipes quickly and consistently" and "changes can be easily made to individual sets of bagpipes based on customer requests or design changes" and "highest-volume bagpipe manufacturer" - basically, if it sounds like the article is trying to sell the company or its product most likely it is the type of promotional content that is not allowed on Wikipedia.SeraphWiki (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying about trying to sell the company, but McCallum Bagpipes is the highest-volume bagpipe manufacturer in the world, so I don't see how that can be disputed as a fact or not. The other statements are more about the uniqueness of the company and their use of CNC machining, which allows them to make easy modifications to their manufacturing process. I can see how that's trying to sell the company, but it's also a statement of fact. {{u|Rey_grschel}} {Talk} 22:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about verifiability WP:V, not truth - there have to be multiple independent secondary sources supporting what you are saying. If the majority view of reliable sources states something as a fact then it can be included in Wikipedia, as a fact, for example "Exxon is the world's 10th largest company by revenue" as reported by Forbes- the notability of the subject is still not well-established by the current article, which is largely promotional, but there seem to be some media mentions that have not yet been added to the article, so I am hopeful it can be improved.SeraphWiki (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues

Greetings @Rey grschel: I saw where you made inquiries at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Relative Notability. I looked over the article, took out redundant red links, and looked at the sources. All but one are either primary, considered too close, or passing mention. I cannot say there is enough shown for notability to avoid an AFD but "specialist publications" are preferred over puff, advertising, promo, or even only primary sources. A big concern has been refbombing to make an article look more notable so use only those needed. Also, the lead is a summary of the contents of the body of the article. This means that referenced content found in the body and summarized in the lead does not really need to be sourced. Otr500 (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better Sources

Article creation reattribution

Advert

Article issues