Jump to content

Talk:Elderly Instruments/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Peer review

I've never done a peer review, so sorry if this isn't the right format.

Feedback
Factoids I found
  • Elderly was a sponsor of Michigan's 2001 National Folk Festival.[1] [2]
  • There's a video here.[3]
  • Elderly is a dealer of Deering banjos [4]
  • Elderly sells or sold bodhráns [5]

--Edibility (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed most of these issues except as noted above - thanks very much! --Laser brain (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I looked for some of the publications online so they could be linked here if they're available online. Here's what I found

  • The Noise Magazine[6] - the archives aren't online right now, but they're working on it
  • The Music and Sound Retailer[7] is only available online for 2007-2008
  • The Greater Lansing Business Monthly[8] doesn't have online archives
  • here's The State News article link[9]
  • Bluegrass Now[10] online archives don't go back to 1998
  • Musical Merchandise Review[11] doesn't seem to have online archives for 2001

I thought I'd leave these notes here to save someone else looking. :) --Edibility (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you very much. Is the accessdate parameter required when you put the url parameter in cite journal? --Laser brain (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I forgot that. It's not required as in you get a warning message, but it's required for a complete citation. But I think you already knew that ;) Thanks for the reminder! --Edibility (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


Nice Advertisement

Nice advertisement for the company! Good job Wikipedia! --64.181.88.254 (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It'll be on the main page tommorow! To every other (big) company: you want free advertisement? Put one of your employees on the task and make your article shine! Cheers, Face 07:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Or not. Wikipedia should not be presented as a corporate billboard. Peter Isotalo 07:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I wrote this article and I am not connected to the company in any way. I also did not request that it appear on the main page. The administrator in charge of that task chose it on his own. If you feel there is language in the article that is not of an encyclopedic tone, let's discuss it. --Laser brain (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I read the article for the Spoken Wikipedia project and feel that the tone of the article is neutral. I also feel that this company is historically important for its work with certain types of instruments and their presence in the folk music scene. I do not feel that this article is any more of an advertisement than an article for IBM or McDonald's. These companies in some way changed or contributed historically and as such deserve an encyclopedic entry. I am also not connected to the company nor even play an instrument nor am remotely interested in folk music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PopularOutcast (talk • contribs) 22:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a side note: my comment was not meant sarcastic. In fact, I don't mind that companies edit, and hopefully improve, their own articles. As long as they stay neutral and calm of course, which I don't think is as hard as it seems. Laser brain, my compliments for your work! This article is a nice read. Outcast, thanks too. Even though the recording is a bit monotonic, your voice has a pleasant sound. Cheers, Face 22:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Well Face, it *is* recorded in mono. ;o) For the same reason they keep the articles neutral, I've tried to keep my voice neutral too, but your input is appreciated as this was only my third read article.PopularOutcast (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The lead where it claims it is "best known as a premier repair shop" kind of made me question the objectivity..who/how may say it is one of the best and how is this determined? "staff was already experienced at taking and shipping orders for customers throughout the world" sounds a little grandiose. I couldn't continue reading when I got to the "Repair and appraisals" section. Most of the article is fine neutrality-wise, but I still would have slapped a POV on the parts or all of the article if I had randomly stumbled across it. I may be more stringent than most people on neutrality, but I would have guessed that more than a few editors would have had problems with this article. I am surprised it was featured in its current form. Dwr12 (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Dwr12, thanks for the input. As with other featured articles, the claims are not those of the article editors but those of the sources used for the article. Multiple sources cite Elderly Instruments as the place to get your guitar repaired, especially if it is a complicated project. That reputation is a big part of its notability. --Laser brain (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Laser Brain, even if I could produce sources saying I'm the greatest person that has ever lived, that wouldn't make it so (I lean towards "yes", but the jury's still out). The point is that we have hundreds of FA's that haven't been on the main page yet. If we feature articles that read like advertisements, that will only hurt our reputation. Even if those articles somehow formally adhere to the basic rules. Lampman Talk to me! 01:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying Laser Brain, and I don't mean to disparage your fine contributions. It is just that most of the descriptions of this shop are quite laudatory, and there are a lot of opinions/statements included from the shop owner who is a biased source of information. The information in the article probably is an accurate collection of what the sources out there say about the place, but that is to be expected given that most publicity about small businesses comes from the business itself, local publications, and trade magazines (which all generally offer praise rather than critique). The sources listed in the reference section all seem to fit one of these three categories. Dwr12 (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


I rememer back in September when Ernest Emerson was a Featured Article, and there was a widespread appeal to Raul654 that he not feature articles that read like pure advertisements, even if they did adhere to the strictly formal criteria of FAs. He chose to ignore it then, and now he's ignored it again. As they say, once is a freak occurrence. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is enemy action. Lampman Talk to me! 01:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a mischaracterization, since Ernest Emerson passed a subsequent Featured article revew. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not a mischaracterization; I never said it shouldn't have FA status, the request was simply that it not be featured on the main page. The two things are not necessarily one and the same. Lampman Talk to me! 04:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
And by the same token, we should never "advertise" video games or albums or books or movies, for example, on the main page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a fruitless debate. This is a matter of sound judgement, the question is whether it should be left to the community, or to two randomly chosen guys. You know very well that FA status does not equal main page exposure, as Raul has several articles on hold that will never be featured. Lampman Talk to me! 04:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there's only one I would be hesitant to feature - Jenna Jameson - and it has absolutely nothing to do with the possibility of it being called advertising. And what that said, the day I decide to quit Wikipedia, I'll be putting Jenna up for a bit of going-away fun :) Raul654 (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
What about Wikipedia (currently demoted), was that ever on the list? Lampman Talk to me! 04:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think navel-gazing on the main page is appropriate. Raul654 (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, and I don't think advertisements are (even with sources). Lampman Talk to me! 05:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I can undertand an article on McDonalds or IBM because they are global companies that have had a significant cultural impact. This is nothing but blatant advertisement. I am sure if I wrote an article on a local music store in sydney, Australia it would quickly be removed. 203.3.197.249 (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as IBM or McDonald's or Baby Gender Mentor are worthy of featured status, so is this one, since it meets notability. Being a smaller, lesser known company than IBM doesn't disqualify an article from meeting the criteria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The article may be featured, but to be placed on the main page should require different criteria - much like "in the news" does. --Teggles (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you suggesting, for example, that only DNA, Monty Hall problem, Titanium and Society of the Song Dynasty are elibible for the mainpage, but never Wii Sports, Nine Inch Nails, Lord of the Universe or The General in His Labyrinth? No music, films, books or companies, only science and history, I guess ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not being suggested at all. What I would suggest is that this advertisement, I mean "article", has no place in an "encyclopedia" full stop, let alone be a featured article! Anyway, I am off to write articles on every store I know of to give them some much needed publicity. 203.3.197.249 (talk) 05:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

How come when I made a similar comment in relation to the advertisement for Nintendo's game in the TFA the other day my comments were repeatedly deleted and I was then blocked for edit warring? I guess Nintendo "representatives" (I put it no higher) have more time to monitor Wikipedia. Dr Spam (MD) (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To my sensibilities, this reads like a blatant advertorial, which I suspect is the source of most of the referenced material that isn't attributed to staff or the company web-site. Hardly neutral! Of course I may be wrong on this, but my view is that, as it is, the "article" doesn't belong on wikipedia, let alone the front page. Special:Contributions/124.177.41.132|124.177.41.132]] (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


Whether it is true or not is irrelevant. When you watch TV and are told that the car has 5 airbags and does 0-60 in 5 seconds, that's factual as well. The point is the most of this information is boring. Elderly Instruments, while undoubtably a great guitar shop, is not really worthy of such a lengthy manifesto, in much the same way that my auto-biography is not worthy of an entry 207.164.21.130 (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I added the advert template and it was reverted. I added it because this article reads to me like one of the most non NPOV articles I have ever read on WP. How this got through FAC I have no idea. It seems from all the comments above that I am not the only person thinking this. How many people have to express alarm before enough of a consensus is obvious to have the advert template stick? I am not moving for deletion, I was adding it so that someone might attempt to re-write it so as not to make people immediately think 'advert', which is clearly the case now. Mfield (talk) 04:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Engaging the wording at WP:ADVERT, WP:NPOV, WP:NN and WP:COMPANY to provide specific examples of what you consider to unsourced or advertorial wording would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
In light of the new information (see below) that at least one of the main sources used is a magazine sponsored by the business, I'm putting the template back up. Lampman Talk to me! 15:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that all the images on this page were supplied by Elderly themselves. Mfield (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
A magazine sponsor is anyone who advertises in the magazine. Is it any surprise to you that the biggest supplier of bluegrass instruments advertises in a Bluegrass magazine? That doesn't mean their articles can't be used as sources. Also, the images are a non-issue. I asked for free images and they complied - that's what we're advised to do in the various pages that give advice on finding free images. I'm removing the template because you're not really discussing anything, you're just making general recreational complaints. --Laser brain (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm sure that's what I'm doing. Funny then how everybody seems to agree with me except the guy who wrote the article and the guy who put it on the main page. Lampman Talk to me! 16:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Why are the templates not currently on the page? There appears to be overwhelming objections to some of the content of the article if you look at this entire talk page. There are only two people (the people who wrote the article I presume) against all the objections. This strikes me as consensus that there are problems in the article...at the very least there is a lack of consensus that the article is neutral. It is not acceptable to block an advert template in this situation. 18.96.5.174 (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep, it's just proving how this article underwent no serious consensus editing in the first place. Block everyone who disagrees. Everyone's out of step but me. Maybe this will result in its deletion, which ironically I was actually trying to avoid by putting the advert template in to ensure it simply got re-written. Mfield (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

POV

"Elderly is known nationally for the quality and expertise of its repair technicians," Shouldn't this line have something like "according to....." at the beginning. That does sound advert-ish and positive. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I too am bothered that this is a featured article. Here are some more problematic quotes:

  • "Today it is recognized internationally for its services and products" - In what way is it recognized internationally? Canadians have heard of it? This is pure sales brochure pap.
  • "In addition to retail and repair services, Elderly Instruments is frequently noted as a center of local music culture, particularly for bluegrass and 'twang' music." - Awkward and POV. How frequently? Noted by whom? Noted how?
  • "Elderly Instruments has become popular and internationally known due to its attention to folk music niche markets,[3] its reputation as a repair shop,[8] its selection of vintage instruments,[7] and its position as a large Martin guitar dealer.[2]" - This is cited, but doesn't explain what is meant by the vague phrase 'popular and internationally known'. Classic peacock terms.
  • "Elderly provides a nationally known appraisal service for vintage instruments."
  • "Some of the instructors, such as jazz guitarist Ray Kamalay, are nationally renowned musicians." - More peacock terms. (Also: Why only 'nationally' and not 'internationally'?)
  • "Twang music is ... gaining popularity in Lansing and other cities." - Evidence? How popular is it?

This phrase "nationally known" pops up again and again. To me, that phrase suggest that everyone in the nation knows about it which irks me as an American who never heard of this store before it made it to the Wikipedia main page. It's true I'm no folk music aficionado, but the article is making some pretty strong and bogus claims. Then again, I don't read esteemed national publications like Bluegrass Now and Lansing Business Monthly either. --D. Monack | talk 07:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

For all the reasons above, I can't understand how this article made it to FA status and the front page.--Varano (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
What sucks about this, is that the article uses a lot of printed works, which makes it difficult to check to what extent those claims are justified, and how we could improve them. - Face 09:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it reads rather like an advertisment and came here to mention it as soon as I saw it on the Main Page. I'll have a look and try to get some actual evidence later. D. Monack gave a pretty good summary. --Tombomp (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree that this article uses vague statements too frequently for an FA. Had I been pro-active and involved myself in the FAR I would have opposed it's inclusion. The vague nature of the article, gives it a less than encyclopaedic feel - it is my opinion that the FAR could have been more strict in this case. This is not the first time I have thought this about a FA, but this is the first time where the nature of the content should have ensured that the FAR process was more demanding than it was. If I have misunderstood a part of the process I would like to know, but I feel the points raised above combined with the less than peer reviewed quality of the referenced articles relegates this to a GA at most. User A1 (talk)
An example of such problematic referencing
Elderly Instruments has become popular and internationally known due to its attention to folk music niche markets,[3] its reputation as a repair shop,[8] its selection of vintage instruments,[7] and its position as a large Martin guitar dealer.[2]
The popularity of the company is a difficult to measure value and is unlikely to be reliably attributable to any particular source, such attributions will at most be speculative in nature. Certainly not by magazines such as Catalog Age Musical Merchandise Review or Lansing Business Monthly. I feel the review process has failed to evaluate the reliability, and more importantly the authority of the attributed sources and their capacity to make such claims User A1 (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


More,
In response to questions about his strategy for dealing with larger retailers such as Guitar Center and American Musical Supply, which also operate large mail order and Internet businesses, Werbin states that he has learned to operate on small margins and serve niche markets to stay competitive
This is a problem, as it purely cites anecdotal evidence by the owner, who is unlikely to give a clear and unbiased view of the competitiveness of the business - does small margins and niche markets make the group competitive? We don't know. Furthermore this could be stated by any small business in the retail & repair sector and still hold (to the degree it does).
Guitarists routinely send valuable instruments to Elderly for complete restoration or other major work such as refinishing and refretting. Many notable guitarists are patrons of Elderly.[8]
Who are these many notable guitarists? Why is this not included in the article?
The company also performs an "inspection and setup" service for new and used instruments, which ensures good workmanship, neck angle, fret integrity, properly working hardware and electronics, and other adjustments. Setup of new instruments ensures proper intonation.[16]
Checking for intonation should be pretty standard in any construction of instruments, as is ensuring the device works. This is hardly a unique nor notable for a guitar repair shop. One could replace the words "instruments" with, for example, "car" or "computer", modify "neck angle and fret integrity" then change "intonation" to "functioning" and describe almost any repair situation - it is not clear how this adds to the description of the business nor what makes it encyclopaedic.
I should stop now, the more I read this the more irked I become. User A1 (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks like I'm still at it. Category:FA-Class_Companies_articles has some good examples of what an FA should be, particularly BAE Systems - from a superficial reading it seems well written, avoiding of peacock terms and concise and precise. User A1 (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to say that, although I disagree with these particular criticisms, it's certainly better to raise the issue here, in the talk page, rather than slapping "db-advert" on the FA or what have you. DS (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Like A1, I am concerned with the preponderance of peacock and prestige terms and otherwise unencyclopedic tone. There also appears to be, for all intents and purposes guitar cruft, in this main page FA. Selected quotes and corresponding criticism:

"frequently noted as a center of local music culture" (P)
"Werbin participated in a lively local music scene that included many collaborations and "open mic nights" at local venues. It was through those experiences that Werbin developed his appreciation for the wide variety of instruments the musicians were playing, as well as the various types of music that fall under the folk music genre." (T)
"popular and internationally known due to its attention to folk music" (P)
"In 2007 alone, Elderly sold more than 16,000 instruments." (T)
"Elderly is known nationally for the quality and expertise of its repair technicians" (P)
The Martin J40-M episode strikes me as fancruft or trivia.
"Guitarists routinely send valuable instruments" (P)
"Many notable guitarists are patrons" (P)
"Elderly provides a nationally known appraisal service for vintage instruments" (P)
"Their appraisal services have been noted in national media, such as The Music and Sound Retailer, as being among the best in the industry."
"Elderly began selling hand-picked records" (T)
"this is due to the belief that customers will become more interested in the music after making an audio purchase and then in turn by a musical instrument." (T)
"The incident was well-publicized" (P)
Referencing a non-notable periodical (Noise) to cite the store as an "epicenter" of a non-notable form of American folk music.

A university, music group, or any other article would have justifiably been shot down immediately with this unencylopedic tone. I read through the FAC and these issues were brought up by User:Malleus Fatuorum, responded to by User:Laser brain, but ultimately unchanged before being supported and promoted. I'm not going to be a dick and nominate for FAR, but given the issues I and other editors have with the tone of the article, I don't believe this should be an FA much less on main page. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Another problem is the section about "twang". There is no Wikipedia article about this genre and the only source about it is the Lansing State Journal. There's no mention what bands perform it. "Current and former employees" isn't cited. No mention of what other works and news outlets cite it as "important to the folk music industry" or a "folk music mecca". --Tombomp (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Tombomp, I don't think something needs its own Wikipedia article to be mentioned in another article. The Noise article is the source for that entire paragraph, including "current and former employees". I didn't mention anyone specifically because they aren't really notable on their own. The New York Times is the source for Elderly's importance to the industry, as noted in the article text: "The New York Times and other works cite Elderly as important to the folk music industry..." and cited to the NYT article about Elderly. --Laser brain (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean that everything without an article is non-notable automatically, it's just an indication it's not well known at all. I realise the NYT referred to it, my problem is with the nebulous "other works/news outlets". --Tombomp (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The main problem, apart from this reading like a glowing advertisement, is that it's just badly written and uninteresting. As to the issue of peacockery, I've gone ahead and cut out at least some of the excessive uses of adjectives like "premiere, large, frequent, best", etc. As to the latter, there's no cure -- this seems like some randomly selected article that doesn't represent Wikipedia's content well. I'm sure Elderly Instruments is important for its employees and customers, but doesn't do much for general Wikipedia readership. Was there really no other article in the FA firmament that might have been selected? --68.99.77.157 (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Another POV: the article is written from a USA perspective. The most flagrant example is the numerous 'national' or 'nationally', most of them have been removed now. But there's still a lack of worldwide perspectives. I agree that this article should not have been featured, we have difficult issues now. Cenarium (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"In addition to a printed catalog, Elderly sends lists of available vintage instruments to subscribers in the U.S. and several other countries by mail and e-mail. The Elderly web site, which offers both new and used instruments, is also updated regularly by a full-time employee to reflect the current inventory" That sounds like it was written by an employee or someone with direct access to one. Its inside information with no citation. Even if the information didn't come that way, that's how it sounds and that's bad. Mfield (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Covered by the citation given to Remson. E-mail me if you'd like a full-text copy of the article. --Laser brain (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The second sentence just sounds like marketing speak. I mean all sales companies update their websites to reflect what they are selling, does this 'fact' merit inclusion in the article? Mfield (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the idea in the source was that a lot of smaller businesses just put up "general" web sites and it might not be clear exactly what they have in stock on a given day. Remson remarked that Elderly has a full-time person that updates the site with their exact inventory every day. Do you have an alternate wording suggestion? --Laser brain (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be removed completely, this just isn't a fact that would be mentioned unless you were promoting the business model. Its not unique or interesting or relevant to the actual business of the company that the article is covering. Mfield (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fine. --Laser brain (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Notable

Really? I don't give a damn about this, I've never heard of it, I don't want to know about it, there's nothing in this article that interests me, I'm never going to go there, and I haven't learnt anything of use. And I like music shops. Harriellie (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Not very constructive, but I also think that this article has a lot of problems, the featured status is questionable. Not that I'm opposed to featured status for companies (BAE Systems is very good). But the article lacks citations and has POV issues, however notability under our guidelines is clear. Cenarium (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Cenarium, can you give me an example of something you feel is uncited? The whole article is covered by the citations given - maybe I can clarify something for you. --Laser brain (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Citation problems have been raised by other editors, I echo their feelings. The article has 25 references, which is minimal for a FA, and insufficient in this case, particularly because the subject of the article is a company. Cenarium (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, can you provide an example of something you feel is uncited? The existing citations cover every word of the article. --Laser brain (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem is just as much one of source quality as quantity. Typically smaller, niche-oriented publications have a greater confluence of journalistic content and advertisement than what is expected of larger, more reliable publications. Unfortunately my subscriptions to both Bluegrass Now, The Music and Sound Retailer and Lansing Business Monthly ran out a while ago, so let me ask you this: does Elderly advertise in any of these publications? Lampman Talk to me! 15:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually scrap that - a quick look at the Bluegrass Now website tells you that Elderly is in fact one of the magazine's "sponsors". As they say, you dance with the one who brung you. Lampman Talk to me! 15:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I used the sources that were available. They all have an established editorial process and are acceptable per WP:RS. I have no idea where Elderly advertises, but if Toyota advertises in Car and Driver magazine does that mean we can't use an article in that magazine about a Toyota? --Laser brain (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no doubt you wrote the best article the sources allowed. I personally think it's a very good article, but I don't think it should ever have been featured on the main page. Most publications rely on advertising to a greater or lesser extent, but as I said, there's a difference between the reliability of The Daily Telegraph and Bluegrass Now. I'm very sceptical to using a journal with such close ties to the business as a main source. Lampman Talk to me! 15:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't doubt either the quality of the article or the intentions of the main author. The length of the article is very well-balanced concisering the obscurity of the topic, and so are the references. I'm rather anti-business myself, but I do like these types of smally, dedicated companies (not to mention bluegrass, country and those wonderful banjos). However, it is absolutely correct to consider this a de facto advertisement, and the issue of featuring these types of articles is potentially very problematic. Concerning the obscurity of the article I can't help getting basically the same feeling I had when ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion got on the mainpage. I really hope this isn't part of a wider trend of making a point about how magically, fantastically, superbly different we are as an openly non-conformist encyclopedia.
Peter Isotalo 16:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
We all have different expectations for a FA, in the sense that we may be more or less strict on a criteria (in this case 1c and 1d), a FAC is closed by consensus and we have to accept the result. There is always the possibility to create a FAR. The FAC/FAR procedures are not in cause there. However, I think that the TFAs should be chosen by the community. Cenarium (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


Just to chime in here, I previously lived in Michigan, and Elderly was well known throughout the region at least. Musicians liked them and their work. Having said that, they probably got more attention following the Gibson copy debate than anything else. It is mentioned in this article, but not clearly pointed to. When I clicked into the article from the main page I actually thought it was not going to be covered because the TOC didn't clearly indicate the section. Something like "Gibson controversy" or "Critiques of Business Practices" might serve better. Having said all that, nice to see little ol' Lansing make a splash. Quine (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Laser Brain feels a strong emotional attachment to this article. It's good article really and a lot of work must have gone into making it. Yet, Elderly may be a completely perfect act of God but without God or the Pope saying that it is... it's POV to say that it is. --65.5.204.50 (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify a little, for example, there is no definition of large. Large by volume? Large by sales? Either still needs a citation of some sort. I'd even go so far as to accept a Large by love if a guitar magazine readership poll ranked it #1.--65.5.204.50 (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Statements are not required to be cited in the lead since the lead summarizes statements cited later in the full text. Please see the Instrument Sales heading for more detail and citations for the Martin statement. --Laser brain (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Potentially controversial statements, even in the lead, Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations, may require citation, this should be discussed, not simply reverted. Cenarium (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of that going on. Editors who have had a hand in creating this article should not be reverting edits that are trying to improve NPOV. That's the whole point. You don't have an NPOV on this article either! Mfield (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I would say that major wording changes should be discussed before being made. The only wording change I reverted was one that removed the very statement that confers notability of the subject. --Laser brain (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There has been plenty of discussion on this Laser Brain. I think all but one other contributor to this talk page have indicated they have problems with the types of sources and the tone in certain sections. It is clear that you are stalling the criticism unilaterally. You did a great job assembling the article, but being a featured article, it seems that most people have concerns that need to be addressed. I encourage you to stop reverting the edits. Dwr12 (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been willing to discuss and correct valid article concerns since day one. Some editors made helpful edits today. I even reached out ([12], [13], and [14]) to editors who provided reasonable lists of concerns with an action plan to address them. --Laser brain (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems like some people are just really against having company articles on the front page. This is nowhere near POV compared to other articles on Wikipedia. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to embroil myself into this, but I'd just like to comment on Wackymacs' comment — if this article is going to be compared to other articles, then it would be best to compare it to other FAs, not just any article since, yes, there are indeed other articles that are far more POV. Gary King (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Wackymacs never excluded FAs. He is just comparing this article to Wikipedia in general. And remember, FAs, expecially the older ones, aren't always perfect, and shouldn't be used as the model for a perfect article. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but it's certainly easier to make a point when comparing one article to any article that merely exists, rather than one that has at some point passed some test. If someone has an issue with an existing FA, then the option to bring it to WP:FAR is always available. Gary King (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I am fully aware of FAR. But I prefer to try and write more FAs instead of trying to demote them. And it is indeed easier to make a point when comparing one article to any article that merely exists, rather than one that passed FA. All I said was that FAs aren't the God of articles, and it is just as legitimate to compare to an A or a GA, or even a strong B. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This is slowly veering to a discussion that should be moved to WT:FAC rather than here, but before that happens, I'd just like to chirp that there is nothing wrong to demote FA articles when they no longer adhere to the current criteria. We aren't harming the articles by any means, which some have considered it. If you look at some FA articles but remove from your mind that it is an FA, then they may actually look more like B articles. Gary King (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article#FA_procedure --Tombomp (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected?

Now someone has protected the page when there's clearly a fair body of opinion that this article has some issues regarding NPOV and advert status. Protected by someone with some history of reverting other changes too so that's hardly objective. People with any history of editing a page should not be protecting it - they should at least make the request to another non involved admin. Mfield (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's on ANI, Wikipedia:ANI#Problems_with_today.27s_featured_article. Cenarium (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Raul has now unprotected, but with a strict enjoinder not to re-add the advert tag which I think is completely appropriate. If folks keep re-adding that they risk a block and the page will just be re-protected again (it's not about whether the tag is right or wrong - I think it's wrong personally - but this article did pass the FA process and labeling it an "advert" even if it has advertisement overtones is not really acceptable while this thing is on the main page). Discussion of the article and its ad-like nature (or lack thereof) is of course fine, as are constructive edits to the article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Front page ad

Wow, how do I get my business on the front page? I didn't think Wikipedia did advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokeshow (talk • contribs) 17:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A hefty deposit to my sekrit slush fund. Raul654 (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No wonder many people don't take this site seriously, then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokeshow (talk • contribs) at 17:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Putting this on the MP was a small misstep between all those other great articles recently. It's a mistake, and at least it's nothing compared to the embaressment of two months ago. Cheers, Face 20:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummm.. this is an ad

this point has been made but please clean up and put a big signy thingy saying it is an ad please [[Eddabed (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC) ]]

Just adding my disappointment at this ad

This should be deleted immediately. It adds no more to global knowledge than the flyers I get in my letterbox every day ljd (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, this is not an advertisment, but rather a perfectly legitimate encyclopediac article. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be encyclopedic, how? Where in the article are the actual facts (rather than opinions) about this business, such as: 1) impact the economy; 2) historical context; 3) unique innovation; 4) social relevance -- beyond what any other semi-successful local retailer of specialty merchandise might have? (i.e. antique dealer, comic book shop, gallery). The article makes nebulous claims of being a "locus" for folk music, and an "epicenter of twang." The substantiation is single, passing mention in a New York Times article about amateur group singing: "It also has a famous guitar store, Elderly Instruments, a folk-music locus..." There are a bazillion other similar businesses across the US-- so far as I know, Wikipedia isn't a business directory, however.--68.99.77.157 (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I and no doubt others are eagerly awaiting an answer to these questions. Until that happens, Elderly is a local shop, claims of national significance are complete WP:BALLS, twang is not a genre, this is an advert. --86.142.247.17 (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on policy, but I've been very concerned that ads would destroy the quality of wikipedia, and this, on the front page, seems like an ad to me. I vote to remove it. (jasper jon (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC))
The front page needs to be regenerated - this article's intro is now far removed from the last time the page was generated. Mfield (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I read that Bimbo Wales rewrote Novell's article in exchange for money. I wonder if there was a similar arrangement here? <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7291382.stm>--Under-roads hreem (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It boggles my mind that advertising like this winds up right on the front page. Yes the article is very detailed and properly wikified but holy crap I spend hours each week flagging articles for being advertisements and this is the result? This is demoralizing. Am I supposed to only try and keep out the crappy ads but keep the ones that successfully masquerade as real articles? Rob Banzai (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Twang/Alt Country

If Elderly really is the 'epicenter' of twang as quoted in this article, why is there no mention of it in the Alt-country article. Some kind of linkage to/from other articles would no doubt help mitigate the feelings that this article is overblowing the importance of the store in general? Mfield (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This issue definitely needs some clarification from someone with the relevant knowledge. There are several issues. First of all, "twang" seems to be a rather imprecise term, and after a bit of Googling it seems that some completely reject this term. Is it the same thing as alternative country? I'm not really sure, but twang seems to be a term used to describe any sort of country that has some sort of rock influence - i.e. it is very vague. Significantly the term "twang" is not even used in the alt country article, which does list a bunch of alternative names. I'm not even sure that we should say alt country is another name for twang, however I plead complete ignorance about this topic.
Additionally, I have to question whether or not Lansing, MI (much less this record store) is really an "epicenter" for twang music, whatever that is (I find about 4,500 Google hits for "twang music" and only 43 for "twang music" Lansing). We have exactly one source which says that the music shop is an epicenter for that kind of music. Given that twang music seems to be an ill-defined term, that there is evidence that it is present outside of Lansing, that there is no particular evidence that Lansing is a hub for this kind of music (at least that I could find), and that the only source that calls Elderly the "epicenter" of twang is a local (and therefore likely biased) source, I think there are some real questions here.
The first paragraph in the "Twang and other folk music" section needs better sourcing and elucidation and possibly a rewrite. It might be a simple matter of deleting the "epicenter" claim since that is highly questionable.
I have not participated in the FA process so shouldn't necessarily be the one to criticize, but this is the kind of thing that should have been discussed there. Right now our main page article is claiming that this music store is the epicenter of a genre of music - a claim which is questionable and not sufficiently sourced.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with all of that - it worries me that this big claim is being made by a local publication and is not backed up in any broader media. I have just done a fair amount of editing of this article though, so if someone else wants to take on the whole twang issue? Mfield (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to hear from the article creator or someone with knowledge of this kind of music. At this point I'm not comfortable making a judgment about what to do, I'm just very wary of the claim being made.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I won't be much help on the Twang issue. I just summarized what the source said. I did do a journal search (Lexis Nexis, etc.) and did not find any other reliable sources discussing the very definition of "twang" music or who is playing it. The only real article I found was the Noise article where the author seemed to have dug into the genre. Maybe that means the genre isn't well-defined yet. What I thought was notable was that a serious journalist took the time to write about how the genre is growing out of Lansing and Elderly in particular. --Laser brain (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I've added an improve citation template to that section to encourage it being looked into. It certainly needs more than one local publication to merit such wording. Mfield (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
And I've removed it and replaced it with a more specific tag (which may or may not be in the right place, please move as needed); if you question a specific piece of text or specific citation, please tag that individually rather than unnecessarily tagging an entire section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No that's good, not all of us can memorize the 5 million possible ways of doing a similar thing on WP though :) In reality the whole section will have to go though if that one source turns out to be unreliable, the whole twang epicenter thing seems to be based on this one publication. Mfield (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't remember them all either; I keep a link to the individual (inline) templates in the userbox on my userpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If some better sourcing is not forthcoming on this issue in the very near future, I think the paragraph in question will have to be drastically re-written (which will probably be sufficient) or else removed. The one source we are using is not sufficient to establish what we claim (and I don't mean this as a knock on the article's creator, there's a lot of good work here). I did a LexisNexis search on "Elderly Instruments" and "twang" for all types of publications for the past 20 years and there were no hits at all. A search in the GNews archive brings up four hits from a local publication, none of which really seem to discuss the relationship between EI and twang. This (no idea why the formatting is so awful) does call EI "the premiere breeding ground for Lansing music" but I don't know if that would be considered a reliable source or not. Regardless, it's a general comment about the store and the local music scene which may have a place in the article but does not back up the content at issue here.

To Laser brain, is the article in Noise accessible through some online database, or do you just have a hard copy? It could be that we will need to rewrite the paragraph in question - toning down its claims - and if more of us could refer back to the original that would be useful. Otherwise maybe you could write a different summary and/or use some different language other than "epicenter." --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

IN case you haven't noticed, Laser has left the building (justifiably, hopefully temporary). But, I know from the invaluable work that he does at FAC that he used a University database for research. I forget the name, but unless you have access to high-quality University databases, it's not likely you can duplicate his sources. This has been the worst display of bad faith I've encountered on Wiki in a long time (not you, Bigtime; thanks for trying to tame it a bit, but this was way over the top). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a shame, hopefully they will be back soon, but I can see why s/he would be a bit pissed. There's no rush on working on this so no worries. Actually I have access to totally awesome University databases but I don't know which one has this particular article - there's so many of those damn things!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Laser left me a talk page note earlier to say he was going to do some further research on the twang topic later this evening. Mfield (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice work

Kudos to those who worked on this. I wish all company articles could be FAs. Wrad (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, some of us are working to fix it, it's already a lot better than it was hours ago. Mfield (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, very nice article and brings back memories of a pal in the mid '60s who had an early Martin. All good. .. dave souza, talk 23:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead needs work

Overall this is a good article, but I'd like to see some more work done on the lead, per WP:LEAD. It could be a better summary of the article, and also make a clearer case for the notability of the subject. When I read it, I felt a bit perplexed as to why this particular business was worthy of a Wikipedia article, let alone Featured status. The case is made, further down in the article, but it would be better to get this info up into the lead. For example, a New York Times quote would be a good thing to include. --Elonka 03:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This cuts to the heart of the problem - is there anything that really makes this company that notable? A lot of music retailers deal with famous musicians all the time but does that merit them a WP article, it's just the nature of their business. Do we need to have an article on the company that repairs Elton John's spectacles etc.? We are now waiting on more citations/information to support the contention that the business is an epicenter of 'twang' music etc. Most of the rest of the business seems to be pretty run of the mill except for a well publicized legal brush with Gibson guitars which is why I moved that item into the lead.. Mfield (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec response to Elonka) Agreed. As a result of its stint on the mainpage today, the WP:LEAD was systematically dismantled and will need to be restored to a version that summarizes the article (as these deletions were happening today, it occurred to me that the editors making them weren't familiar with WP:LEAD or featured standards). (Diff to last good lead). Images were also removed unnecessarily, and it may take some time to determine what else needs to be restored, as there was somewhat of a feeding frenzy. Mfield, if you think it's not notable, just go ahead and submit it to AfD and see how speedily it's kept. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I take it that those are veiled accusations at me as the 'editor making them wasn't familiar with WP:LEAD or featured standards'. If you didn't agree why didn't you say something at the time? I also removed one image which I certainly don't think added anything to the article, being a so so snapshot of pretty much any record store in the world that made the article feel like a brochure. Go on revert it back to the the version that everyone that read it complained about then we can all start justifiably putting the advert tag back in. Seriously you can't win here - complain about the article yet do nothing then someone will bitch that you are a drive by complainer, and if you try and actually get in and help solve the problem some other moron will quote loads of WP acronyms at you. Revert it, watch it get deleted wholesale. I am over it. A lot of people who read it this morning thought it was an advert, it's much better now. I don't think its not notable enough to be deleted, I am trying to improve it if you hadn't noticed. Mfield (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think engaging in the mainpage day feeding frenzy was likely to be fruitful, and no, you weren't the only editor engaged, nor do I intend to revert. But the article is not universally better now, it needs to be systematically reviewed and restored to recover from the aggressive editing that happened without discussion, and the lead specifically needs to be corrected. The lead should summarize the article, highlight important points, entice the reader in, give us an idea why the company is notable. It no longer does that. When an editor deletes text from the lead leaving edit summaries like this is covered in the first paragraph and condense and its covered in the article anyway and its still covered in the article, I wonder if that editor is aware that the WP:LEAD is intended to be a summary and everything in the lead is typically included later in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) I've restored those aspects of the lead that establish notability. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably too much was stripped out of there, but by restoring most of the old content (or all, I don't know) some problematic claims and "peacock terms" have crept back in. Rather than elaborate on that here I'll just start a new section because I'm seeing some issues in the lead but also in the text as well.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs

Spoken Wikipedia file for this article

So at this point what I recorded is entirely out of date. The point of recording the FA articles is that they should have already gone through a great deal of revision and editing. In this way, the recording does not need to be changed often since future changes would likely be minor (like grammar).

I will be happy to re-record it when the edits are in a more final state as I did find the material interesting (perhaps I'm in the minority here). In any case, I have some trouble following the edits on the history page (as I'm a complete noob to this area), so it would be fabulous if the person who takes the lead on making the final edits would let me know when they are basically done. I do realize these articles are in constant flux.

If this is too much to ask and entirely out of the Wiki etiquette, that's cool. I'm always of the thinking it never hurts to ask. I will try to follow all this as best I can.

Oh and the editors/authors are welcome to pull the recording from the page if they see fit. Thanks for listening! :o)

PopularOutcast (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I hear ya, and am sorry if you feel your effort was in vain. In fact, I think that anyone who puts the time in to do such recorded versions of WP articles is doing an immense service of public accessibility, and I thank you, as I'm sure do many others. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh I totally don't feel it was in vain. I learned a good deal by reading this article and witnessing this debate educates me on the workings of Wikipedia. I do expect to have to re-record portions of articles as new info is added but it seems this will be almost an entire re-write. I'm just a bit overwhelmed with all the talk and editing right now ... just need a thumbs up when it is ready for re-recording. It's a very short article and quick to do especially now that I can pronounce words like bouzoukis and balalaikas. Who knew?? And thanks! PopularOutcast (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Some remaining issues

I know this article (and its creator) had a rather rough day yesterday, and as a result I apologize for bringing up what I see as some remaining problems with the article. The FA thing is over and there's no point debating about that. However I think there are some real issues with this and I'm only pointing these out in the hopes that we can make this article even better. What follows is a bulleted list of some problems, as I see it at least. Most of this simply calls for re-writing/toning down language.

(Note: the lead was drastically changed but then largely restored to an earlier version by Jbmurray. Comments about the lead relate to that version of it.)

  • From the lead, Elderly has "a national reputation as a seller, repair shop, and locus for folk music." The problem here comes in saying that the store has a "national" reputation for all of these things. The first two (seller and repair shop) seem reasonable to me though there could probably be better sourcing in the article. The claim that Elderly has a national reputation as a "locus for folk music" is not properly sourced in the article and I would wager that that is simply not true. I assume the sources for this claim are footnote 24 (the NYT) and footnote 25 (the Detroit News). I want to elaborate on those specifically below, but suffice it to say for now that I do not think the claim for a national rep as a folk music locus is supported in the body and thus should be removed in the lead.
  • From the lead, "Industry publications, particularly music retail trade and bluegrass music journals, frequently feature articles about the Elderly repair staff." Small point, but "regularly" is almost certainly more accurate than "frequently."
  • From the lead, "Today it is recognized internationally for its services and products." This is supported only by the source in footnote two, an article in The Music and Sound Retailer (I looked for this in both ProQuest Newspapers and LexisNexis and could not find it, so it's probably in a more specialized database or only available in hard copy). Even if that article claims that the store "is recognized internationally for its services and products" I do not think that one claim from one obscure source is enough for us to say this in the article. Also in point of fact I find it unlikely that this store is "internationally recognized" in any meaningful sense (not in the sense that some people outside the US know about it). If it is we need more sourcing.
  • From the lead, "Elderly grossed $12 million in 1999." I could be wrong but for companies we seem to put revenue info in an infobox on the side, not in the lead. Also I don't know that 9 year old financial numbers are worth mentioning.
  • From "Twang and other folk music" section. This is where the real problem comes in, and demonstrates in more detail the problem I mention in the first bullet. Problems with the first paragraph in the section are mentioned in the "Twang/Alt Country" talk section above so I won't repeat them. But the second paragraph is equally problematic.
    • First sentence, "The New York Times and other works cite Elderly as important to the folk music industry due to its selection of instruments, community involvement, and industry knowledge." The only source cited is this New York Times article. First off, we cannot mention "other works" without citing them. Second of all, the NYT article does not remotely say what the sentence suggests it does. Here is the sum total of the NYT's discussion of Elderly in that article: [referring to Lansing, MI] "It also has a famous guitar store, Elderly Instruments, a folk-music locus open since 1972..." The sentence is almost certainly referring to it as folk locus for Lansing, or for Michigan - not in general. It makes no reference to anything about "instruments, community involvement, or industry knowledge." Note that this is clearly the source being used to assert that Elderly has a "national reputation" as a "locus for folk music," yet the source does not say that at all. It's also worth pointing out that this is a trivial mention in an article about a different topic - the store is not even remotely the focus of the piece.
    • Second sentence, "Other news outlets cite Elderly as a "folk music mecca" due to its popularity with folk musicians and its organization or sponsorship of folk festivals, such as the annual National Folk Festival." The "other news outlets" are really just one, an article in The Detroit News. I could only access the abstract for that article in ProQuest, and based on what that says I'm guessing the abstract is what the article author was looking at as well. The title makes clear that the store is the "folk music mecca" for the state, not nationally. It does say that the store was a sponsor (presumably one of many) of the Folk Music Festival and that it "has been a haven for fiddlers, pickers, pipers, singers and devoted listeners ever since Stan Werbin and a pal hung out their shingle back in 1972." It's quite likely that the entire article describes the place as a largely local phenomenon, but if the article author has the full text and if there is evidence there that the store has a national reputation in folk music then that would provide some backing for the claim in the lead. Right now neither the NYT article or the one in the Detroit News demonstrate any sort of national reputation in folk music.

This may come off as nitpicking but that is not at all my intent. I think this is a fine article and again am just looking to improve it. For whatever reason, I think some things were missed in the FAC process. No worries, and I don't think this stuff is all that difficult to fix. Because of the crazed editing of the last 36 hours or so, I want to lay all of this out on the talk page before making any changes. Also just a note that I really only looked closely at the lead and the final section as well as other parts of the body that pertained directly to claims in the lead.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The FA 'thing' is NOT over. This article remains an FA, and will remain one until it is demoted as a result of outstanding issues not resolved with an FAR. If you genuinely feel this is not of FA standard and the issues you raise are not resolve in due course, I suggesr you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article review Nil Einne (talk) 09:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, personally I feel that listing this at FAR right now would be a bit boorish (just my view). When I said that the FA thing was over, I meant the article was off the main page and debate about whether or not it belonged there is probably not very helpful right now. At this point I'm more in favor of improving the article and seeing where we end up. If down the road it seems like the problems are still there, then a review would be appropriate.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that Bigtimepeace. It certainly seems as if the problems with notability are more than just superficial. The language I removed from the lead yesterday which has now been reinstated is definitely problematic IMO because it uses the short lead section to make general claims based on cited information later in the text that, with further investigation, turn out to be more than a little overblown. My intention yesterday was to immediately cut back on the peacock language that people were finding offensive while it was on the front page. Now it is off there we can make some more considered edits. I agree immediately with your points 1 through 4 - all these edits could/should be made straight away. The NYT citation issue is worrying and needs addressing, it seems as if maybe that whole section on the Twang music epicenter should be cut unless additional citations can be found, Laser said yesterday that he would do some follow up investigation with a librarian so maybe we wait on an answer on that. Mfield (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
If you have problems with notability, WP:AFD is thataway ---->.
NB I would have thought that yesterday was the time for making "considered" edits.
Waiting a bit would seem a good idea, especially to see whether or not Laser brain returns from his wikibreak.
And boorishness is clearly not in short supply here, so why not take the article to WP:FAR, which is the place for a thorough examination from the community as a whole? There are plenty of articles waiting for comment there (with active editors who are still on Wikipedia), and I note that neither Bigtimepeace nor Mfield have yet to make a single contribution there. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
For best results here, it would be preferable if everyone could focus on discussing the article, instead of the editors. --Elonka 21:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The article is recently promoted, and would't be considered at FAR until three to six months after promotion: see the instructions at WP:FAR. Unfortunately, a lot of people overreacted yesterday, the article now needs to be restored somewhat, it's not a big deal, there is nothing here that isn't easily doable if people will just relax and wait and see if Laser comes back, and try not to do too much damage in the meatime until/unless he returns with access to the sources. Considering the things that were said to and about him, the break was a wise thing to do; I hope everyone here will just slow down and wait to see what happens when/if he comes back, since he has the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I am not questioning the overall notability of this topic and never have - I have no interest in taking it to AfD and if it was I would strongly support keeping it. I do think the level of notability claimed at points in the article is not sourced well enough (which is the whole thrust of my above points). I'm obviously in no rush here. I know that Laser is on a break right now and can certainly understand why (as I've said elsewhere). I have made no substantive edits to the article, instead I brought up what I see as some remaining issues with the article here on the talk page so they could be discussed. I tried to do this in a polite matter which was sensitive to the nasty comments made about the article creator when this was on the main page, and in which I had no part whatsoever.
I only became aware of this article when it was on the main page. I saw what I felt were some problems but took the time to draft a considered response describing some of the issues. It probably took me about two hours to search for stuff in databases and write up the above points. I did so because I am trying to help improve the article. Jbmurray is right that I have never participated in any aspect of the FA process. I didn't realize that my failure to do so somehow makes me less qualified to work on an FA article after it had been promoted, which is what that editor seems to be implying. There are probably a thousand ways to participate here at Wikipedia and FA is just one of them. I have hoped to get involved with that for some time but just have not as yet, though quite frankly Jbmurray's comment does not make me feel like it's a very welcoming place (I would never snipe at someone for not writing a DYK, or failing to participate in AfD, or anything like that). I've done a lot of article building here at Wikipedia and am a very competent writer and researcher who, I think, has a pretty good idea of how good Wikipedia articles should read. I started this thread to try to improve the article, not to relive the nastiness that occurred when the article was on the main page. I had nothing to do with it and refuse to be associated it. If folks want to discuss the points I make above (we can all read the NYT article and see that it does not support the claims made) and work to improve this article, which is already very good, then I'm all for it. If instead folks want to rehash the stupid advert tagging and terrible assumptions of bad faith about Laser brain, or take shots at folks who have not participated in the Featured Article process (which was happening on AN/I as well), then there's no need for me to stick around here.
I don't normally word talk page statements as strongly as this but I do not appreciate Jbmurray's comment (which is really a shame, because I have read about WP:MMM and as a grad student and college teacher myself I think it's a wonderful project). I think this is literally the first time I've made a detailed and plainly good faith comment about improving an article (doing research about the sources that perhaps no one but the article author has bothered to do) and been met with a reply of "yeah, but you don't work on Featured Articles." After yesterday we would do well to work hard to make this a collegial editing environment and, as Elonka says, focus on the content and not the editors. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Bigtimepeace. First of all, apologies if I was snappy. I think there's been a fair amount of snappiness all around. I do appreciate your careful examination of the sources and the way in which they are used in this article. I don't regard myself as (in Mfield's words) a "self-appointed traffic warden." But it is clear that something has gone rather awfully wrong over the past day or two, and this article (and unfortunately also this article's major contributor) have borne the brunt of that. I really would suggest we all lay off for a little bit. I point to WP:FAR not so much to upbraid you (though I realize it could seem that way, for which I apologize), but more in fact because this kind of patient review is in fact much needed there. Moreover, you'll find there articles with active editors who are waiting and hoping for such comments. I really do want to encourage you to contribute there. Again, apologies if I expressed myself badly, especially given that there is all sorts of discussion going on all over the place sparked off by this one article's appearance on the main page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Or to put things in another way, and to try to set all this in as positive a light as possible: if the mini-uproar about this article has served to bring FAC and FAR to more editors' attention, and indeed to increase the level of involvement there, then that would be a marvellous thing. I do hope that that could be the end result. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I am past worrying what the self appointed traffic wardens types have to say about your and my good faith attempts to approve this article, I have witnessed far too much passive and not passive aggressivity towards myself and various other editors that have questioned this process to give these persons' opinions any further consideration. I wasn't involved in the FA process and I, as you, believe that not being a part of that process does not give us any less right to comment on an article's featurability after the fact, nor should it deny us any right to try and improve it in the short or long term. Mfield (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Further to that, I had a constructive dialog with Laser - the original author of most of the article - and he was appreciative of my efforts and understanding of my reasons for objecting. It seems strange that all the hostility is coming from people purporting to speak in his defence and on his behalf suggesting that his work has been ruined and that it will have to all be reverted. Mfield (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Peacockery, or misunderstanding adjectives

I've again removed more fluffy adjectives. In particular there was (and continues to be) a wanton misuse of "large" throughout. Saying Elderly is a "large dealer" or "one of the largest.." is not a meaningful descriptor for a company, unless you are referring to the size of its facilities. "Large" does not clarify if you are referring to the quantity of goods sold; the breadth of inventory; the revenues generated; or perhaps the square-foot of its store. None of which are substantiated in the article with a decent and reviewable reference. A local newspaper's weekly entertainment insert isn't a "reliable source" for a claim of comparison to other musical instrument retailers. --68.99.77.157 (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

$12 million

User 68.99.77.157 just removed this info from the lead saying that its meaningless and got reverted. Well, I have to agree with him, stating outdated random financial information financial information that is not up to date and doesnt give context is pointless not very usefull and is not usually done in company articles. That said, the most recent financial information should be added to the infobox if available. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Acer (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC) I struck the wording above after I realised that it might have come off as offensive or blunt which was not my intention Acer (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it'd be good to have the latest financial information; this gives a sense of what's meant by what 68.99.77.157 describes as that famous "peacock term," "large." If the twelve million is the latest financial information we have, then it should obviously stay pending any update. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem's that the article doesnt assert in any way that 12 million is a large (notable) sum within the context of instrument retailers, on the contrary, the section that mentions this number compares it to online retailers that had revenues of up to 300 million... lackin any specific reson why 12 million is notable the number becomes meaningless. (if it is the latest data avaible then I'd agree it should be added to the infobox) Did I make any sense? Acer (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Err, this is not a newspaper - while information should be "current" it should also be "historic" - both are relevant. Ideally, you'd want sales numbers for all the years of operation, maybe with a little plot. In the meantime, the number(s) that we have suffice. WilyD 21:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thats not the issue, the problem is context and relevance. The way the number is presented in the article, in isolation, doesnt give any clue why that year in particular was notable, why not pick 1980 or 1995? Do you see where I'm getting at? Take a look at other company FAs like Microsoft and BAE Systems. The Microsoft article only meantions financial information in the infobox while the other one has a table with financial infomation from a number of years, giving context and making the information usefull. Acer (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Is the data available for other years anywhere? WilyD 21:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I coulnt find it online, I guess we'll have to wait for Laser to come back Acer (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Whatever happens, it does seem to be the case that the info should be in the infobox on the side based on precedent. I'm fine with putting it there, although obviously more recent revenue numbers would be better.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
For the infobox, the most recent sales numbers we can dig up are obviously best. If many years of numbers can be found, a little plot would be swell. WilyD 13:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Archive 1

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Elderly Instruments. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elderly_Instruments/Archive_1&oldid=1140140356"