Talk:Singer Model 27 and 127/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

By now I've had a fairly quick review of the article; and I've "tweaked" a few minor points, rather than highlighting them as "problems" to be fixed.

Overall, the article appears to be interesting, generally well referenced and apparently comprehensive, so it should make GA-status this time round. However, I must add several caveats: the WP:Lead is inadequate so it will need to be improved (I tend to review the lead last, so it may be a few days before I make detailed comments what improvements will be needed); I don't regard "Ibidem" as a valid reference, if the reference has already been provided it should be "named" and recalled by name: and there appear to be one or two "gaps" in the article. None of these appear to be too serious, such that they can't be fixed within a one or two-week "On Hold", so I will continue with this review. Pyrotec (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will now go through the article section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. At this stage I'm generally only commenting on "problems", so if I don't mention a section that probably means that I regard it as OK. The downside of this, is that this part needs to appear to be somewhat "negative"; but it will be balanced by the end of the review. If you have any comments, or questions, add them to this page; and I'll reply on this page. Pyrotec (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title -

I consider that the "title" of the article and a consideration of what this article is about needs to be be addressed first of all.
The title is Singer Model 27 and 127 and the WP:Lead starts off: "The Singer Model 27/127 is a model series of lockstitch sewing machines produced by the Singer Manufacturing Company around the end of the 19th century". So the article is clearly about the Singer Model 27 & 127.
It is stated in Identifying characteristics: "All machines in the 27 series (VS-1, VS-2, VS-3, 27, 28, 127, and 128) have ...", so perhaps this is intended to be a definition of the 27-series.
The Vibrating shuttle and the History sections also refers to the (model) 27 series; but the Production section has a diagram showing the model 28 as an offshoot of the VS3 and the rest of the article discusses VS1 to 3, Models 27 and 127 and Models 28 and 128. The infobox also summarises models V1 to V3, 27, 28, 127 and 128. I'm happy to accept that VS 1 and 2 (and 3?) can be discussed as predecessors of the 27/127 but the status of the 28/128 is unclear (its not mentioned in the WP:Lead for a start). Pyrotec (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the answer is hinted at in Production: if I got it right the 28 and 128 are portables. However, for a potential GA, this aught to be made clear from the start. Pyrotec (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying characteristics -

Reference 4 is not really a reference its more of a footnote since its a wikilink to another article. Wikipedia is not regarded as a WP:RS, so this section is unreferenced. Pyrotec (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Place marker) I may come back to this section.

Vibrating shuttle -

(Place marker) I will come back to this section.

History -

Reference 5 is not citation its a footnote or comment since its a wikilink to another article. Adequate references should be provided for Wilson, Porter, and Baker as per WP:RS.
I would suggest that the statement "The design of the model 27 series began with Allen B. Wilson ...." needs a rework. Wilson invented and patented the vibrating shuttle - if a case is to be made that he designed the model 27, then reliable evidence should be provided to justify this.
This statement: "He applied for patent on 1 July 1884 and received US patent 326821 on 22 September 1885." needs a citation. (I've added a link at ref 8 for the 1873 patent, so I know that this one is here; but why should I add it?).

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the fourth paragraph two currency conversions from USD at some date to adjusted values are given. These dates (but not the original prices which are referenced) are uncitied and unverifiable. It needs to be identified what date range the current conversions apply over (there are citable web sites that provide such conversions, but the date of the sale is not given; and I would have expected a citation to say at e.g. 2009 or 2010 values).
Ref 12 needs a full citation, "ibidem" does not work on wikipedia when anyone can edit (and vandalise) articles.
The same comments apply to references 16, 19 & 26 that appear later in the article.

Production -

A nice summary diagram. The diagram is not referenced, so I would expect to see the references appearing in the body of the text.
I don't like the "Currently AKA" column label. Looking at AKA, AKA could, but might not, mean "also known as". "Current" works fine without AKA.

- Portable versions -

- This subsection (including its table) is entirely unreferenced.
- It also seems to suggest that the models 28 and 128 might be portable versions, but it does not explicitly say so here or anywhere else in the article.

- Modernization -

- Since a reference is made to a US Patent, I would be helpful to provide a web link (see my comment earlier).

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Knock-offs -

This is not a term that I am familar with, so I put it into Google and it came up with an "unauthorized copy or imitation". I suggest that the subsection title is changed to something like "Imitation" or "Competitive models".
Currency conversions from USD at some date to adjusted values are given. The dates are uncitied and unverifiable. It needs to be identified what date range the current conversions apply over (there are citable web sites that provide such conversions, but the dates are not given; and I would have expected a citation to say at e.g. 2009 or 2010 values).

Closing review. No nominator has been inactive since the end of Septmber 2010 and has not responded to email contact. Pyrotec (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]