Talk:Bic Cristal/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 02:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

These are not good-faith comments, and do not add value to any review. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
OPPOSE. I disagree, the edits made by Laurdecl especially the Introduction reads like an advertising promotion of the product more than any encyclopedic entry. I.e. "It was first launched in December 1950 and is the best selling pen in the world – the 100 billionth was sold in September 2006. It has become the archetypal ballpoint pen and is ubiquitous anywhere a pen can be found, to the extent that the Museum of Modern Art has made it a permanent part of its collection. Its hexagonal form and design mimics a classic lead pencil; it is sold in black, blue, red, and green." I.e. Similarly, "become the archetypal ballpoint pen"? Says whom, and what source says this? Also weasel words like "inexpensive", "best", "ubiquitous", "permanent part" Worse, most of these edits deal in absolutes and lacks neutral wording, . Reading this I would suspect that there is a WP:COI, especially as the words "the best selling pen in the world" is both improperly cited and is clearly subjective. The link [1] actually says "The world's most popular pen." Where this was made says "unknown." (Even if true, it is only for September 2006.) Also the word "Biro" isn't even mentioned here even though it is in the Wikionary[2], which is used as it describes the Hungarian inventor of the design [3] as László Bíró. (A Wikipedia page.) A patent on the idea was John Lord in 1888. The article doesn't attribute this at all. Remarkably too, there is also another related, very similar, and far more detailed Wikipedia article Ballpoint pen, which is much better referenced and detailed. If anything, this article should merged into the Ballpoint pen. From the available information this evidence here is enough to have the request of WP:GA by Laurdecl rejected. It is worrying too that the nominee has made many recent edits then asks for a review.leaving the real possibility of COI. If anything, the article should be instead dropped to a lower category grade of importance. Note : I have never edited not commented on this page before. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC) Enough. I have removed your screed about that nebula article from my talk page. If you ever follow me to random articles again to harass me and make baseless claims about myself having a COI we can talk about it on AN/I. Of course you have never seen this page before; your arguments are weak and meaningless – a merge to ballpoint pen? Is that a joke? Not only have other editors told you to "dial it down" [4] but an administrator warned you here to stop with your personal attacks, calling the editor who stated the RfC a "groomer"! As I can see from your talk page you are no stranger to making baseless COI claims closed by admins. Apparently you haven't learnt from past blocks. Thanks David Eppstein for the review. Laurdecl talk 08:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC) @Laurdecl: @David Eppstein: My immediate apologies any inference of WP:COI, which was an unintended mistake by me. I meant, as the way the whole article reads, as shown since the first edits in 2006 till now. I have now struck out the wrongful implication. My sincere apologies for unintended wording, which I do mean. But as to the threat of an WP:AN/I, I'd welcome it. Bring it on. You act like a bully, show absolutely no willingness to cooperate collaboratively, and show little remorse or contrition - even if someone tries to be nice to you or makes a mistake. You make hostile edits to obstruct another editor, then plead total ignorance or act dumb about the fact without even a whiff of compromise of compassion. (How does such indignation feel?) Moreover, your tirade written above has already broken a dozen rules of WP:PA, not even counting that most of accusations stated above isn't quite true. So yes I do make mistakes, but at least I'll admit to them and take responsibility, and yes I do make immediate apologies for the misunderstandings or my unintended errors. You, it seems, gives no quarter to anyone at all. Pity. (Again, you'll find the little nit-picky flaws in my response here, and make them some great slurs or cry bitter indignation.) As for saying, "...but an administrator warned you here to stop with your personal attacks, calling the editor who stated the RfC a "groomer"! " is a despicable utter lie just in an attempt to discredit me. I used the word 'grooming' as its legitimately meaning. The editor Lankiveil: in question removed their accusation statement of 'child grooming', the discussion on the Talkpage having been deleted, but the actual text is here.[5] As I said, "The word 'grooming' clearly means "prepare or train someone for a particular purpose" and my comment was specifically to the Wittylama's unnecessary replies asking opinion - influencing others to a particular point of view." As Mitch Ames said of linking: "...you linked to Child grooming, effectively implying that Arianewiki1 was making a quite serious allegation. However Arianewiki1's post had no such link, and could quite likely have referred to "coaching" or "mentoring" (eg as used in Mentorship). Arianewiki1's post was uncalled for, but not as bad as your link implies. I think in the interests of WP:AGF you should consider removing the link to child grooming from your post." 'I suggest you instead withdraw this disgusting slight immediately., especially saying "calling the editor who stated the RfC a "groomer"!"'. Arianewiki1 (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC) Now as for this article appraisal. I stand by my opinions. It is absolutely lacking in its objectivity, which was true even before you made your edits. You also claim of me as written above "your arguments are weak and meaningless", however, David Eppstein's point 1b, DOES (independently) agree with me and my general appraisal. So that isn't quite true is it? (Of the parts you edited, I'm interested in why you didn't see it as likely promotional material? This is especially in light of the fact that it is also mentioned in the Talkpage several times.) As for me saying "Reading this I would suspect that there is a WP:COI, especially as the words "the best selling pen in the world", ...when the given reference says "The world's most popular pen."" Sure it might have been in 2006, but compared to what? Ballpoint pens, fountain pens, etc.? References must be both verifiable and reliable. I.e. Someone who is the 'most popular' isn't necessarily the best 'seller.' It is therefore subjective, isn't it? When a series of subjective words appear together or near together, it really looks like advertising and suspiciously like a possible WP:COI. In Wikipedia articles it is happening all the time, and over the years I've found several violations that needed correction. Needless to say, qualifying by saying "I would suspect" or "a real possibility" of WP:COI isn't the same as saying "X has a WP:COI." Another small thing is that you removed a dead link, which only occurred by a URL change by the site, but never looked for it by using the search engine on the website. (You've repeatedly done this on a few other pages on my Watchlist.) Probably not intentionally, but it might be a habit. Arianewiki1 (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC) Fine: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikihounding.2C_personal_attacks.2C_incivility. Laurdecl talk 09:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Initial reading

Note: This was all written before seeing any of the commentary added above.

1a. Prose quality.

• Lead: the "lead pencil" link needs disambiguation.

Someone has already done it.

• "; it is sold in black, blue, red, and green": colors of pen body, or of inks?

Actually not true; I've removed it. (Fluorescent orange, anyone?)

• History: Clichy might be worth a wikilink.

It's linked in the lead.

• "cutting and shaping metal down to 0.01 millimetres (0.00039 in), with the outcome a stainless steel, one-millimetre (0.039 in) sphere": I don't understand what this sentence is supposed to mean. What shape did the metal start in and what shape did it end in? What is the relation between the "0.01" millimeter measurement first given and the size of the sphere? Is the 1mm its radius, diameter, or some other value? And what is the connection between the Swiss cutting technology at the start of the sentence and the freely flowing ink at its end? And there's more to the pen than the ball at its point: was there nothing of interest to say about how the rest was manufactured?
• "under a licence from Bíró": what specifically did they license? And the second link to Bíro in the same paragraph is unnecessary.
• "Called the "Atomic pen" in France": presumably this was the original name of the pen, since it was a French company. So when did it start being called the "Cristal"? And technically, the "called the" phrase is dangling, since it seems to be intended to modify the pen but grammatically what it actually modifies is the pen's tip. And again this sentence ends somewhere unrelated to where it starts: what does the shift from fountain pens have to do with what it was called?

I've updated the wording according to the source.

• "from fountain pens to mostly ballpoints": this reads a little awkwardly. What verb or adjective is the adverb "mostly" supposed to modify?
• What is the significance to this specific pen of the French switch to ballpoints in 1965?

Its inexpensiveness and ease of manufacture?

• "acknowledged by the Museum of Modern Art": I'm not convinced this is the correct verb. Is it usually called "acknowledging" when a museum adds something to its collection?

I've replaced it with "recognised".

• "brass/nickel silver tip": those are three different metals. Are they alloyed, or does the pen come in different varieties with different metals in the tip? What is the significance of the slash between two of the metals and not the third?

Do brass, nickel, and silver alloy cleanly? Not sure about the slash. The MoMA source only gives plastic and tungsten carbide as materials. The Ohio State University says the tip is made of brass, so I've gone with that.

• "In 1961 the stainless steel ball was replaced with much harder tungsten carbide which is vitrified by heat, then ground down and milled to an accuracy of 0.1 micrometres (3.9×10−6 in) between spinning plates coated with industrial diamond abrasives.": another overlong and confusing sentence.

I've attempted to break it up.

1b. lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• "the archetypal ballpoint pen and is ubiquitous anywhere a pen can be found": the wording is a little promotional and neither of these claims seems to be supported by actual text in the body of the article.

I thought this, but I found a source (Smithsonian, actually) that says the same thing.

2a. Properly formatted references.

• Although not a GA requirement, reference formatting is not completely consistent. Some are formatted in CS1 (with the {{cite}} templates), others with more haphazard manual formatting. And the Gizmodo reference doesn't list the publication date (easily available from the link).

Done.

• The "Phaidon Design Classics" reference needs page numbers to be easily verifiable.

I don't actually have the book, and I'm not about to spend $223 on a GA review...

2b. The sources used are reliable and verify the claims that they source.

• Source [1] (Phaidon) taken on good faith as it is offline
• Source [2] (MoMA checksheet) gives only the construction date, construction materials, company name, and provenance of the object in the museum collection. It also has a general caveat that "A number of objects in the show, new proposals for acquisition, have not yet made it into the collection." But it is used as a footnote for a sentence about which subunit of Bic designed it and when it was designed, and another sentence about it being added to MoMA's permanent collection. It does not verify any of these claims.

Above "BIC Cristal" it states the name of the design team, so it works for the first one.

• Source [3] (Larcen) talks about the "Classic Stic", a marque not mentioned in the article. How are we to know whether this is the same pen?

The grammar is confusing, but I believe the slogan is not referring to the Stic.

• Sources [4] and [5] (Guinness and MoMA collection) really do source what they claim.
• Source [6] is primary (from Bic) and vaguely worded, but appears to source the claim that the hole in the cap is to prevent asphyxiation. Is it supposed to source more of this paragraph?
• Reference [7] (gizmodo) contradicts our article. Our article says the stylus rubber tip replaces the ballpoint; the reference says it's at the other end of the pen.

Fixed.

2c. No original research or unsourced claims.

• "first launched in December 1950": this claim in the lead is never repeated as specifically in the body, and has no source in the lead.

The "Humble Masterpieces" PDF gives 1950 as the release date.

• "it is sold in black, blue, red, and green": unsourced.

Removed, as above.

• "ink flows down due to gravity": really? It was my understanding that at that scale capillary action was much more significant. Anyway, unsourced.

I'm not sure what to do here, as I believe the paragraph is sourced to Phaidon. For what it's worth, I tried writing upside-down with a blue one and it didn't work, although that seems like the definition of OR.

• "Called the "Atomic pen" ... mostly ballpoints.": unsourced.

There are a few pen history blog posts (who writes this stuff?) but they seem to take it from us. I did, however, find this, which seems to source it.

• Most of the design section has only two general footnotes at the end. It is unclear which of the claims in this section are cited to which of these two footnotes.
• "The company funded a website": unsourced.

Sourced.

2d. No inappropriate copying.

• I can't check the offline book source. Earwig found two very similarly worded web sites http://www.1bc.eu/post/150680690637/bic and https://awritersden.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/my-names-biro-bic-biro-%F0%9F%98/ but judging by the dates and article edit history they copied from us rather than vice versa, so no problems here.

3. Broad coverage.

• Mostly, but one thing that occurred to me as I read this was that the intellectual property side of this was covered only vaguely and tangentially in the reference to licensing from Bíro. Did Bich patent anything? Did any competitors try to copy the design? What was their fate?

4. Neutral.

• No significant issues.

5. Stable.

• Yes.

6. Illustrated with properly licensed and captioned images.

• The images are of good quality and appear to be properly licensed. The caption for the second one is perhaps overly detailed.

Toned it down a little. The image with the caps is actually a "Quality image" on Commons.

Verdict: Some issues need fixing before this can be GA, but there appear to be no serious obstacles to fixing them. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Laurdecl: I noticed there was a flurry of edits last weekend, but it seems to have stalled out again. Please let me know here when you think you have addressed all the issues above and would like me to make another round of review. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Sorry; I was a bit, uh, distracted... I've annotated the above, can you take a look? Cheers. Laurdecl ^talk 07:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Second reading

1a. Prose quality

• Two points from my previous reading (the confusing "cutting and shaping metal" sentence, and the license from Bíró) still not addressed.

It's sourced to Phaidon, so I can't check the original text. I think that it means that the machine was capable of shaping to 0.01 mm and therefore could produce a 1 mm sphere. When read that way, it isn't confusing. I've tried to reword it.

I've reworded the Bíró part.

1b. Words to watch

• The editorialization is now properly supported by a source.

2a. Source formatting

• Page numbers for the Phaedon book still not done, but with a pretty valid reason for not doing them. I'm guessing the pages are easily enough found from the index, so it's not a huge issue. However (maybe more for 2b than 2a): if you're not checking that source, and I'm not checking that source, who is? Unfortunately worldcat.org lists only two libraries in Denmark and one in England (Wolverhampton) as holding this book; I don't suppose you're anywhere near either?

No, unfortunately, and the plane ticket would be even more expensive. We'll see how the RX request goes.

2b–d. Source quality, verification, unsourced claims, and copying

• All issues from prior reading addressed.

3. Broad coverage.

• This is a pretty short article, so there's still plenty of room for expansion if appropriate material can be found.
• Issues related to intellectual property from previous reading: still not addressed. Potential sources: [6] [7]

I've written a bit on the first one, at the end of the "Design" section.

• A talk page comment from 2012 mentions the "Bic Cristal For Her" line, which is still not mentioned in the article, and maybe should be. Potential sources: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] etc. It could go in the same section as the stylus (with a different section title), and prevent that section from being so short.

Done.

4-5. Neutral and stable.

• No issues found in previous reading and nothing new to add.

6. Illustrations.

• The overdetailed image caption is now ok; no other issues.

Verdict: Converging towards a positive result but not quite there yet. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Laurdecl: Hello? I got the Phaidon scans 12 days ago and I assume you did also. Any estimate on when you'll make progress on these remaining issues? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Alright, I think I've done everything. Laurdecl ^talk 00:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Third reading

Ok, we now have scans of Phaidon to compare to. (At least, I have them, and I assume Laurdecl does too; they are not freely available online.)

Phrases and sentences sourced to Phaidon and whether Phaidon actually supports those sentences:

• "In 1945 after the Second World War, Marcel Bich and Edouard Buffard founded Société PPA in Clichy, a suburb north of Paris. "PPA" stood for Porte-plume, Porte-mines et Accessoires – pens, mechanical pencils and accessories. During the war Bich had seen a ballpoint pen manufactured in Argentina by László Bíró. Between 1949 and 1950...": supported neither by Phaidon nor by the other source (the MOMA blurb).

@David Eppstein: For the 1945 date, there are quite a few conflicting sources. One official timeline gives the date as 1944, but another gives it as 1945. This tertiary sources gives it as 1945, and Googling "bic company founding date" gives a very precise "25 October 1945, Clichy, France", but I don't know where Google gets this from. Should we assume the first source has a typo? Laurdecl ^talk 23:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

We could waffle a bit and write "around 1945" rather than "in 1945", maybe? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe the first source refers to when the building was bought, as opposed to when the company was founded. I'll reword it. Laurdecl ^talk 23:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• "the Bic Cristal was designed by the Décolletage Plastique design team at Société PPA (later Société Bic)": the source doesn't say that the team was at SPPA, but it does mention the name of the design team and the Société Bic name of the company.
• "Bich invested in Swiss technology capable of shaping metal down to 0.01 millimetres (0.00039 in), which could produce a stainless steel one-millimetre (0.039 in) sphere which allowed ink to flow freely. Bich developed a viscosity of ink which neither leaked nor clogged": not supported by Phaidon source.

Sourced to Phaidon online: http://au.phaidon.com/agenda/design/articles/2011/october/19/everyday-icon-3-the-bic-biro/ Laurdecl ^talk 11:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• "under a licence from Bíró for the ballpoint, launched the Cristal in December 1950": this part is ok.
• "Bich invested heavily in advertising, hiring poster designer Raymond Savignac. In 1953 advertising executive Pierre Guichenné advised Bich": not supported by the source.

Done. Added a part about an award as well. Laurdecl ^talk 11:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• "to shorten his family name to Bic as an easy-to-remember": this part is supported, maybe uncomfortably closely in wording: the source says "a shortened, easy-to-remember version of his name".
• "globally adaptable tradename for the pen, which fit in with product branding trends of the post-war era": not supported by the source.

I'm not sure that we can find a source that says this. We could remove it, but it's mostly harmless and fairly obvious. Laurdecl ^talk 11:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Sourced to the online Phaidon article. Laurdecl ^talk 11:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• "Its hexagonal shape was taken from the wooden pencil and yields an economical use of plastic along with strength and three grip points giving high writing stability": not supported by the source.

I've reworded this to simply say that it resembles a lead pencil. This is fairly obvious from the pictures. Laurdecl ^talk 11:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• "The pen's transparent polystyrene barrel and polypropylene tube show the ink-level": the source mentions the materials and the fact that the barrel is clear; it doesn't say that it's to show the ink level, but this seems a minor point.
• "A tiny hole in the barrel's body maintains the same air pressure inside and outside the pen": not mentioned by the source.

Sourced to the FAQ. Laurdecl ^talk 23:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• "In 1961 the stainless steel ball was replaced with much harder tungsten carbide. This ballpoint is first vitrified by heat, then ground down and milled to an accuracy of 0.1 micrometres (3.9×10−6 in) between spinning plates coated with industrial diamond abrasives": the source says only that the ball is a "perfect sphere of tungsten carbide".

Sourced to https://u.osu.edu/bicpens/03-manufacturing/ Laurdecl ^talk 12:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The new material on counterfeiting and spin-offs looks good, although the word "namely" in the Bic for Her section reads a bit awkwardly to me; maybe "particularly" would be better?

So if we can just clear up the sourcing issues for the sentences not supported by Phaidon, we should be good to go. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like I've got a lot of work to do... Laurdecl ^talk 08:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Laurdecl: Er, is this going anywhere? This has been going on too long; we need to wrap it up. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Sorry, it's almost impossible to find sources on something so obscure that don't quote from us. I think that's everything. Laurdecl ^talk 12:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Laurdecl: One last sentence needs both a source and some detail on how it specifically affected the Bic brands rather than just being about ballpoint pens in general: "In 1965 the French ministry of education began allowing the use of ballpoint pens in classrooms." I pointed this one out before but no change has been made. Or you could just remove it, as it doesn't seem essential to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Sourced and reworded. The source also clarified that the pen works via capillary action, not gravity. Laurdecl ^talk 07:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, all issues have been addressed; passing. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)