Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oliver Typewriter Company

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:48, 3 March 2008.

Oliver Typewriter Company

edit
Check external links

Nominator Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 15:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article meets the FA criteria. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 15:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nom restarted, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose, 1c, reliable sources and recuse; I'll pass this nomination to Raul654 (talk · contribs). Discussion:

There is a precedent of passing a FAC with blogs and self-published sources at Search Engine Optimization. In that case (some of the discussion was off-FAC), it was determined that the blogs and self-published sources did represent the most reliable sources available in that industry/field from the most recognized experts in the field. In other situations (for example, some past MoS discussions), Raul has said that anything that can be fixed should be fixed. In this case, the failure to use sources that meet our WP:V requirements can be fixed. The self-published, personal webpage sources that are used list sources that meet WP:RS, and those sources could be checked and used. We don't need to use non-reliable sources when better sources, that meet WP:V, are available.

Even after several of the non-reliable sources I pointed out earlier were removed, almost one-third one-quarter of the sourced statements in this article are still cited to personal, self-published or commercial sources: (typewritermuseum.org, homepage.mac.com, geocities.com, and a commercial site). The reasoning given for accepting some of the self-published personal pages was that they list their sources. We shouldn't take their word for it that these sources are accurately represented; if they list their sources, we can use those original, reliable sources.

A note to reassure elcobbola: Raul has disagreed with me many times in the past, and I have no problem if he overrides my oppose.[1] He's the FA director. According to some of his talk page posts, he has been very busy lately, so there may be some delay before he can get to this. Please be patient, as he may be busy. And so you won't feel that I'm singling out this article, in the past I've always lodged a strong oppose when I had sourcing concerns; I'm just not comfortable passing the article when I have 1c concerns, but Raul may decide that it's fine. Good luck! (Please thread and indent responses below my sig to make it easier on Raul to catch up here.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struck one, now removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Updated percentage above to reflect some sourcing changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiholism from Elcobbola
  • Forgive my posting here; I'm on my iPhone in the middle of Iowa, so my editing abilites are limited. I just wanted to request that the decision be delayed until at least this evening when I can respond properly. If not, I understand; I don't want to delay due process. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no urgency, elcobbola; Raul will either promote it or not, but with four supports and no other issues, it won't be closed anytime soon. No need to rush. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Sandy. If I have a bit of time, I'll reflect and respond when I conclude my roadtrip (tomorrow/Monday). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 05:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial response to Sandy's concerns Some of this will be redundant to be responses in the old nom, but reassertion seems appropriate. The commercial site is gone, so we’re faced with self published sources.
    • Regarding typewritermuseum.org and geocities sites:
WP:SPS sets forth that such sources “may … be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications” (emphasis in original). The publisher/editor, Paul Robert, has authored published work including, among others, The Typewriter Sketchbook (ISBN 978-1-8479915-2-2), The Five Pound Secretary (ISBN 90-74999-05-0). Other contributors include:
  • Rob Blickensderfer (co-author of The Five Pound Secretary)
  • Darryl Rehr authored Antique Typewriters & Office Collectibles (ISBN 0891457577) and is former editor for ETCetera.
I think this establishes the source as being written by established experts. The concern, then, is that, if the site lists sources, those sources (and not the site) need to be utilized. I think, however, that I disagree with Awadewits’ determination that sources are here. That page does not explicity identify itself as a source list for Oliver articles and I don’t see this page referenced on the pages utilized by the article. It appears to be largely a “further reading” list. That being the case, it can be reasonably determined that typewritermuseum.org is indeed the “primary” source, not derivative of other published works. Again, as it is written by experts as defined in WP:SPS, I believe it qualifies as reliable per WP:V.
The same applies to the geocities site, the personal site of Will Davis. As a regular contributor to ETCetera, Will Davis is established as an expert. As the site does not indicate reliance on published works, it seems reasonable to treat it as a "primary" source. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, only two of the sources about which Sandy is concerned remain; each supports only one “item”.
  • The Geocities site is only supporting the cessation date. As Sandy has said, we need to use the best sources available to us. This is the only place I have ever seen a cessation date. British Oliver is almost entirely unknown to history; it had neither a unique design nor “successful” sales (it’s hard to be recognized by the populace when your product is, in a funny sense, confiscated by the government). People simply haven’t researched it, let alone published information. This is indeed the best, and only, source available to us. Although undoubtedly not optimal, it is not entirely unreasonable to consider it reliable given the context and my previous comments regarding the author and WP:SPS.
  • The homepage.mac.com is only supporting production dates and numbers for British models. Again, this information does not exist elsewhere. The cited page lists two published sources, one of which is from 1927 (i.e. before British Oliver) and the other does not contain the British information. The author’s statements on the page and especially this page strongly suggest that the British data are unique to this site (i.e. this, again, is the best and only available source). We need to consider context; these data are the result of what can be reasonably interpreted as a deliberate and sincere attempt to gather data not before collected. On a general level, the site lists sources and provides credit and copyright information, which, in addition to being very rare for a personal site, indicates a level of trustworthiness and reliability. As the only known source of this information, it may be appropriate to IAR, as exclusion of the data would be a detriment. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very nice work, elcobbola. I've struck my oppose since you've convinced me about the few remaining items. I'll leave a note for Raul. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wanted to mention that I have finally gotten around to typing up my material from the library (see article talk page) and scanning some other material and emailing it to Elcobbola. Hopefully this well help resolve any remaining issues. Awadewit | talk 22:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflit)

  • Support I looked for the commercial links. O.K. http://homepage.mac.com/sljohnson/typewriter/oliver/oliver-3.html is not the best per FAC standards but I don't think all should be rejected out of hand. There are many extremely interesting references. The article is actually interesting and I wanted to read it. (That is not too common for feature article. My last favourite was Bob Meusel and I was the only one that voted for it.) This article is a breath of fresh air. To my eyes, this article is a clean, concise and unpretentious article. I appreciate that. Plus it is nicely laid out. Mattisse 02:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Oliver_Typewriter_Company&oldid=1138468270"