Jump to content

Talk:Elderly Instruments

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleElderly Instruments is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 21, 2008.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 10, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
March 21, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Sources

[edit]

I spent a bit of time looking through the article's sources. Most of them I can't verify, and the few I could, I had concerns. On the up side, the store does appear to be notable, at least according to the music critic for The Detroit News, who referred to it as a "mecca" and a "megastore", and said that it was one of the chief sponsors of the National Folk Festival. On the downside, the sentence that was sourced to that article was not really accurately reflecting what was in the source, and completely omitted the author, just listing it as "staff" (I have since fixed).[1]

But for many of the other sources, I have concerns:

Of those that I could verify, such as via a World NewsBank search:

Then of the rest, even though I didn't personally verify them, they're probably reliable:


And then the rest look to be local publications, or music trade magazines that may or may not be reliable:

If anyone can help offer information (or stubs!) on any of the above, please do.

--Elonka 22:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good list in terms of the break down. I can't add much in the way of specifics but would just say as a general comment that I'm guessing most of the smaller publications are okay so long as we use them for fairly non-controversial claims. For example Bluegrass Now and Bluegrass Canada are at one point used to source the claim "Periodicals for the bluegrass genre such as Bluegrass Canada and Bluegrass Now have featured stories about Elderly and its selection of bluegrass instruments and repair services." I don't see any problem with that kind of use of the smaller sources, and I think that's a lot of what's going on here. Probably the next step is to check and make sure that the less reliable publications (and the more reliable ones that don't have much detail) are not being used to source claims which they cannot really support. Probably for 90% of the citations there is no problem in that regard, but there might be some issues. This is definitely something we might have to wait for Laser brain on as he will have access to these sources. In the meantime though it wouldn't hurt to make a list of possible sourcing issues with specific citations.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and disagree. :) I do agree that it's okay to use smaller sources for certain claims. But it depends how small. :) For (an extreme) example, if we have a newsletter that's hand-produced and hand-distributed in a single college, that's not really a publication, that's more of a printed blog. And Wikipedia rules are pretty clear about not using blogs or message boards as sources.
Another consideration, is availability. If we're using sources that (as an extreme example) can only be found as back issues in someone's basement, and aren't available via any kind of university access or inter-library loan, then that's a problem. Sources have to be verifiable by other editors. Also, with all due respect, I very much disagree with the philosophy of, "We have to wait for Editor X, because s/he is the only one with access to the sources," or "Please no one else edit the article, we have to wait for Editor X." See WP:OWN#Multiple editors. Any sources used on this (or any) Wikipedia article must be sources that a reasonably diligent editor can track down to verify. If not, we shouldn't be using them. The article should also stay open to editing by all good-faith editors, not just the primary one. --Elonka 05:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bigtimepeace in that (to put words in his/her mouth) there is something of a sliding scale on the reliability of sources. At the top is Carl Sagan's dictum "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" while at the other end is "Prosaic information does not require a footnote". In general, then, only the most absolutely reliable sources can be used to document controversial or extraordinary claims. Basic information, on the other hand, could be documented by the trade publications you list above.
Regarding availability, I worry because some editors seem to be saying "If I can't find it on the Internet, it fails WP:Verifiability". Most local information will not be found in the New York Times or Google books.
So, my basic thrust here is that we cannot generally say that "this-or-that source is unreliable" but rather we have to review the footnotes one by one. Madman (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a page long description of the company and its business model from Contemporary Business 2006 By Louis E. Boone, David L. Kurtz [6] which might prove a useful, reliable source. Also another sign of notability, of course.Slp1 (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is also an 2005 Associated Press Newswire article entitled "Gibson Guitar sues Lansing shop for advertising knockoff banjo", which I can send people a copy of if desired.Slp1 (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I cannot access to The Detroit News source, is Megastore used in this sense ? I don't really understand all of it, it's a rather obscure term. Maybe precisions should be added, and a link to megastore. I'm not sure that this is consistent with Wikipedia:LEAD#Provide_an_accessible_overview, maybe there is an other way to express the notability in the lead ? Cenarium (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remark, when I see Confucianism in the lead of Society of the Song Dynasty. A link should be enough, if it's indeed the appropriate sense. Cenarium (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple relevant quotes from: The Detroit News article, "Music: State's folk music mecca is in tune with times" by Lawrence B. Johnson, August 13, 1999, page 1E[7]
  • "Elderly Instruments , one of the engendering spirits and chief sponsors of this weekend's National Folk Festival, 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. A classic success story that perhaps reflects both Werbin's business savvy and the imperishable allure of folk music, Elderly Instruments has exploded from a seedling 10-by-12-foot instrument shop into a 35,000-square-foot megastore that offers thousands of instruments, many more thousands of CDs and sells to a mail-order list of 125,000 customers."
  • "Werbin's venture thrived, and each time an adjacent shop went out of business, he rented that space and removed another wall -- until Elderly Instruments occupied the entire basement. In 1982, he acquired his own building, and a decade or so later bought the building next to that. Today, Elderly Instruments employs a staff of 85."
--Elonka 20:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's in accordance with the meaning from Big-box store. I just add a link. Cenarium (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, though. "Big-box" is almost always used to describe national chain stores, like Wal-Mart or Costco. It's a pejorative term that conveys the sense of an omnipresent goliath out to crush the little guy. It wouldn't apply to a local business like this. I think the newspaper article is just using "megastore" to mean a "physically large building that sells products". Zagalejo^^^ 01:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then it would be a good idea to clarify it in the lead, or move it elsewhere. This is potentially misleading. Cenarium (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Zagalejo^^^ 02:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update on sources

I have gone through all the sources again and verified that almost all of them are indexed on Ulrich's and other places. I put notes above. They are circulated, library-held journals that should be considered reliable. Ulrich's has comprehensive information on each journal. Some of them are less-than-mainstream but so is the subject matter. Anyone with access to a competent librarian can access any of these sources. The only dubious source is the Absolute Michigan, which is little more than a blog. As of right now, that source only covers a statement about Elderly selling the valuable Dobro collection which anyone can verify by following the link to Elderly's page explaining the sale. I found a better source for the remainder of the Dobro statement. --Laser brain (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When discussing bluegrass music (which includes a good portion of Elderly Instrument's business), Bluegrass Unlimited is undoubtedly a reliable source (see footnote 2 in the Bluegrass Unlimited article). Cmadler (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping the Shark

[edit]

Okay, since nobody else has done it, I'll call it. Wikipedia officially jumped the shark on May 21, 2008. Cause of death was a blatant advertisement, which failed to respect all those of us who did our work for Wikipedia on the understanding that this was not a commercial endeavour. I'm deeply offended by this article, and very angry that the work I did in good faith to help in some small way build up Wikipedia has been subverted in this way. RomanSpa (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you disagree that we should have an article on this subject, nominate it for deletion via WP:AFD. If you disagree with its featured status, nominate it for featured article review via WP:FAR. I suggest you do neither; the result of both is a given.
You say the article "failed to respect all those of us who did our work for Wikipedia", yet I am seeing no respect from you for Laser brain, who as well as this has been a highly significant contributor to multiple content review processes. His work has been invaluable. Think about that before making snide remarks if you disagree with something. Thanks. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with DHMO here RomanSpa, the article creator has been taking a lot of grief which is wholly undeserved. You are not the only one who has suggested that there are some issues with this article, but others who share your view are discussing the article calmly and making changes to improve it (which is obviously exactly as it should be at Wikipedia). Your comment implies that the article was somehow a paid advertisement (Wikipedia is "not a commercial endeavour") which is not the kind of accusation you want to throw around without some evidence. If you want to work to improve this article I'm sure others would welcome your help, so long as you are respectful of the editors who have been working on it already and doing so in good faith.
What I do like though, is the idea of a page somewhere in project space where folks list out the moment(s) they think Wikipedia "jumped the shark." That would be truly fascinating to read (though it would probably be too filled with personal attacks).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find Wikipedia an ideal place to advertise my clients' products, particularly computer games and such like (a lot of wikepedia "users" play computer games). So what? Advertising is simply the distribution of useful information to an audience that might otherwise remain ignorant. Dr Spam (MD) (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are there so many idiots on Wikipedia? RomanSpa shows absolutely no respect for other editors (and obviously doesn't know of any Wikipedia policies or processes such as AFD and FAR), and Dr Spam seems to be an annoyance for many other editors from glancing at his contributions. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please (Wackymacs) do not engage in personal attacks, this can only make things worse. It cannot be expected that an occasional contributor, nor a reader or new contributor, be aware of our policies and guidelines. The way Laser has handled this affair was exemplary, and most of the accusations were unfounded, and he calmly replied to them. Featuring the article on the Main Page is not advertising as explained above and on Laser's talk page. Again, Laser has not chosen to feature the article on the Main Page, this process is explained at WP:TFA. Don't misinterpret his intentions. But the fact that the article is featured on the Main Page may indeed, be viewed as an, unintentional, promotion of this company, and these concerns are debated. Cenarium (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very interesting here that when some editors are attacking the article, that they are treated as though they are attacking the primary editor, Laser Brain, even when they never mentioned him. However when I recently brought up concerns that someone was being uncivil about an article that I was working on (Dirty Dancing), I got jumped on for the opposite reason, in that I was told that the comments were about the article, and not about me. Double standard, anyone? In any case, I feel that the ultimate lesson here is that civility is important, regardless of whether talking about an editor or an article. --Elonka 17:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he also left a comment at Laser's talk page. I'm fairly convinced that something should be done to revamp the TFA process, like we said at WT:TFA, the question is: what is the next step ? Cenarium (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything negative?

[edit]

Is there anything negative someone has said about this store? All the article cited seem to be positive. Even if this store is universal appraised there still has to some negative things. For example the game Call of Duty 4 has gotten perfect scores across the board, but theres a still a paragraph mentioning the complaints and negative aspects of the game. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for sure but it's quite possible that there really is little or nothing out there in the way of negative/critical coverage. The coverage isn't super extensive to begin with, and small businesses like this might indeed only receive positive coverage. There's a number of articles like this on Wikipedia, where the subject of the article really just has not received much in the way of criticism, and there's not much we can do about that. I suspect that is the case here though if there is criticism it should obviously be included.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although we should be careful not to give the criticism undue weight. Zagalejo^^^ 06:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree in principle and in point of fact with respect to this article. Based on the little bit of searching I did on EI earlier if there is any criticism it is very, very much in the minority in terms of coverage. Like any excellent article, if we find criticism it should be incorporated seamlessly into the article itself and not given undue weight in its own section. Quite frankly I highly doubt there will be any criticism to speak of (of which to speak?).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if Coasttocoast has read the article, since the lawsuit is mentioned in the lead, and has an entire section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worklist

[edit]

Hey everyone. It's going to take me a bit of time to catch up on the various dialogs here but I'll respond to everything I can within the next 24 hours. In the mean time, if anyone wants full-text copies of any of my sources, email me and I'll forward them. I'll be working on providing additional sources for claims people seem to be disputing or find lacking in more mainstream sources. --Laser brain (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would be interested in seeing them. Please send along to elonka@aol.com  :) --Elonka 03:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

megastore vs. mom-and-pop

[edit]

The article characterizes the store both as a megastore (in the lead) and a mom-and-pop store by its owner. Unless you bend the accepted usage of these terms, they do not reconcile with each other. I think the article should clearly state which of the two it is, or if it is ambiguous to stay away from either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.96.6.162 (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; those comments need clarification. Cmadler (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet sales

[edit]

I'm surprised there is no paragraph describing the moves from in-store sales to catalog sales to internet sales. I think this web archive could be used as a basis for detailing when it was that Elderly began offering online sales. Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the third paragraph of History. It chronicles when Elderly went into mail order and then into Internet sales. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by tagging by DGG

[edit]

Today admin and arbitrator User:DGG applied a maintenance tag characterizing this long time featured article as a news release or otherwise promotional. I'm not seeing it. Instead of reverting the tag, I'm opening the discussion in the appropriate place.

Normally I wouldn't question David's contribution, but thought it unusual that a relatively stable featured article would get a drive-by tagging from an admin, applying no discussion or critique here on talk. So I looked at the page history and captured this diff of the version promoted to featured status in 2008 and today's version with the maintenance tag.

Is my reading so poor that I can't see the promotion creeping into this page since page promotion to FA? To my eyes the diff demonstrates the article is better referenced and even more neutral than the version promoted. I'm disappointed in David's choice here, but this isn't between my view and his. This is about drive-by tagging a featured article as opposed to putting it up for FA review. What edits need to be made in order to keep this nice little article featured? Am I alone in being confused by this tagging? BusterD (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of standard promotioanl techniques:
adjectives of praise.
"why I started the business" anecdotal account
Bringing in peripheral topics to make additional links, e.g. " Shortly after the 1972 United States Presidential election, the Michigan Youth Politics Institute moved out of the space across the hall, and Elderly took over the entire basement of the building." The only thing relevant to the subject is that they expanded into the entire basement.
Use of uncritical local business journals as sources
last paragraph of section 5: his own quotation for "why my business is successful"
Too much emphasis on finding quotes showing that people thing they are good.
Drive-by tagging means tagging on the basis of first impressions without looking at the article. I hope this shows that I always have specific reasons. To be sure, sometimes I do make errors (my estimate is about 0.2%: 20 out of my 20,000 edits per year validly pointed out to me, and I assume I do an equal number that aren't.) , and sometimes my views are not supported by the community. I agree that my the standards for promotionalism in 2008 I wouldn't have tagged it. We're paying more attention now. Looking back at the FAR, I see other promotionalism was also noticed and removed then. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the issues you perceive are worthy of tagging the article as promotional. I'm not saying there may not be things that could be done better in the article—but to me it's unfair to come by and throw a big banner on the top of a featured article before trying to work out your problems via editing or discussion. That's what "drive-by tagging" means, and many people consider it disruptive. As far as your individual examples, I don't agree that any of them are problems. This is a business that is notable because it is widely praised and written about in statewide news and in journals particular to the trades they service. I've been targeted with accusations of "promotionalism" (your word) ever since I wrote this article, overlooking all the years of service I've put in and the thousands of other articles I've improved, and the fact that I've been right here on this Talk page the whole time to discuss and respond to issues. --Laser brain (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unhappy with the practice of drive-by tagging (which Laser Brain has more neatly defined than DGG, IMHO) especially of mature work. I have always been so; I remind DGG my first experience editing with him was about a drive-by application of the rescue template, done very cavalierly by an ARS member, a sad chapter of deleted Wikipedia history which I'd prefer to not to rediscuss in this thread. Such tagging of established pagespace is something akin to templating regulars, a perhaps lazy, certainly poor practice which tends to come across as unnecessarily confrontational instead of collaborative. It's one thing to point out the flaws in early and undeveloped work; it's another thing to drop a maintenance tag (especially such a harsh one) on well-developed, stable pagespace. For my part, I don't believe I've ever edited here, either in talk or in mainspace. I have recommended the page to newcomers (like my mentee, the unfortunate User:CorporateM) as an example of what quality company articles can achieve without growing to 80K in size. I'm quite clear what this article has represented to my developing wiki-sense. For my part, now that my annoyance is made clear, I ask forgiveness and beg indulgence: let us point out exactly what issues THIS historic page possesses so we can correct them and avoid a delisting now. Since you started this, David, would you mind helping us to satisfy all your concerns? Thanks to both of you and to all the fine editors who have helped this page enter my admiration so long ago. BusterD (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources are not accessible, so it's hard for me to suggest anything with much confidence, but here are a few notes at first look:

  1. Recognition section: It is almost always promotion to have a dedicated "Recognition" or "Awards" section, especially when the award(s) are cited to a primary source from the award organizers themselves. I've authored some guidance here at WP:ORGAWARDS. I would remove this section.
  2. Twang section: The quoted "epicenter" is ok for now, but finding a more neutral wording would be ideal
  3. Do we need to say "hand-picked"? The source does not appear to be available online, so it's hard to see how much emphasis is given to it
  4. Marketing & Business model: The second paragraph does come off as problematic due to its excessive focus on the store owner's own claims at low prices, but I can't see the source, so it's hard to say.
  5. Repair and appraisals: Second paragraph seems completely unnecessary trivia. I think the reference could be useful as an external link or further reading
  6. Repair and appraisals: Suggest trimming: "Customers may either bring instruments directly into the store or send them by mail. Elderly owner Werbin attributes some of the company's success and reputation to the quality of the appraisals.[5]"
  7. Instrument sales: Words like "elite" are only needed if that's a specific industry phrase or category
  8. Why is "collections" in quotes?
  9. Instrument sales: Suggest trimming: "In interviews, Werbin frequently mentions Martins made before World War II as especially desirable and "memorable" pieces of the Elderly Instruments inventory." Generally speaking we're more interested in what independent sources say. Interviews are usually best treated as primary sources, since the information is still coming directly from the article-subject without editorial control from the secondary source
  10. Gibson Guitar Corporation lawsuit: Really surprised to see a dedicated section for a lawsuit in a FA article. This kind of thing typically goes under Corporate History. Could also probably be trimmed in half by making it more concise
  11. History: suggest trimming "immediately" near the beginning
  12. History: Is there a separate article on Webin? The first paragraph could probably go there, rather than here.
  13. History: Suggest trimming: "Werbin notes that entering the Internet business was not much of a challenge for Elderly, as the staff was already experienced at taking and shipping orders for customers throughout the world.[11]" Just a note, the following statement after this "He also notes that, with its mail order and Internet business accounting for 65–70 percent of its total revenue,[2]" seems more like an acceptable use of the founder's commentary. We generally trust companies to report their own revenues and it's an important part of any business page.

Regarding the tagging, I wish we could just delete the templates entirely and decide only if an article is worth keeping. We could just tag ALL of our articles with "this article isn't perfect", but in any case, best to move on to actually fixing the problem. I have no COI, no affiliation, etc. with this organization. Cheers. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 03:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, CorporateM, for taking the time to compile this list. In retrospect, I never should have written this article. I was relatively new to Wikipedia at the time and I was looking for a topic that wasn't covered. Elderly Instruments came to mind because it has an almost mythical status among musicians, especially those who play Martins or who are in the folk and bluegrass industries. If you need a Martin repaired or have a vintage Martin to restore, you ship it to Elderly, even if you live in LA. Traveling musicians go way out of their way to visit the store. Most important, it's long been an "epicenter" for folk music and culture in the region, if not the country. Some of the things you might consider undue weight (like the Gibson lawsuit) are prominent not just because it was a huge deal for the company, but also because the anti-corporate warrior of the week has always told me there is not enough criticism in the article and demanded a separate section for the only negative thing I've ever found published about the company.
I'm trying not to take this personally, but it's difficult after years of people attacking me by accusing me of promoting this business, accusing me of paid writing, telling me I ruined Wikipedia by having this on the front page in 2008 (something I did not request or advocate for), and targeting me in their high-horse crusades against writing about businesses. DGG is just the latest character, and one who should know better, offering vague criticism and edit warring to put this stupid banner on a Featured article. --Laser brain (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are many articles where an NPOV representation of the total body of literature is positive and they are always difficult to protect against paranoid accusations of COI. It's unfortunate that you have experienced the kind of drama that is very common here. However, I don't believe badgering DGG is very much better or that using his admin/arbcom status as a bully-stick demonstrates good character. As is always the case, the best thing to do is focus on the content, review sources, remain civil, assume good faith, and when a dispute arises, involve other editors. The best thing to do moving forward is to keep discussions focused on specific sources and the specific article-text that represents them. In any case, I am semi-retired and am scurrying off now. Cheers. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 16:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite correct—I shouldn't take it personally and I shouldn't take shots at DGG. DGG, I apologize for that. When I see things like "typical promotional techniques" I have a hard time seeing past that as a personal attack, because you are commenting on my motives at the same time you are commenting on the content. I'm upset, and so I'll step away and take a break. In the mean time, do whatever you think is best. --Laser brain (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, this is a featured article, which means it has had lots of eyes on it. As such it really isn't approriate to tag it. Tagging is intended as a last resort for intractable issues to alert the reader to a problem. That doesn't apply here, and the content isn't doing any harm, so I'm minded to remove the tag. SarahSV (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't disagree more. If you want to make it a policy, propose it. The only rule we do have, is of not editing it while its on the main page, and that makes sense. Otherwise, the more important and widely read the article, the more important to maintain it at a high quality. Tagging is not a negative act. Tagging is recognition that there may be problems, and thus increases confidence in the objectivity of the encycopedia .
"typical promotional techniques" does not imply that an article is intended to be promotional. But so many WP articles are, that perfectly well-intentioned people write others in the same pattern, using the same phrases. And promotionalism is so common in the outside world, that its very easy to fall into the habit of thinking along those lines in doing any kind of writing. To make a proper encycopedia , these tendencies need to be actively resisted. But this argument is not what's immediately needed. What's really needed is improving the article. Instead of rejecting critical comments, use them. . DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I'm not sure which part you disagree with. Wikipedia:Ownership of content#Featured articles is policy. Another section of that policy (WP:STEWARDSHIP) says: "In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert edits that they find detrimental ..." It suggests observing BRD.
As for tagging, I've been here for 11 years, and drive-by tagging has always been frowned upon. I don't think I've ever seen someone do it to an FA. Tagging is only not a negative act, as you put it, if you're not the one who wrote the article. To the writers, it's likely to be distressing, so it's best avoided unless the problems are serious and intractable. SarahSV (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elderly_Instruments&oldid=1196654903"