Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lamy/archive1

Lamy

An article on the influential and popular pen manufacturer, Lamy (self-nomination). Images, plus extensively referenced/sourced information. Comprehensive examination of the most striking examples of industrial design by Lamy. Dysprosia 07:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Firstly, some of the text is no brilliant prose; too many one sentence paras, for example. Secondly, there are only really two references. That is not enough. Thirdly, there is little about the company history; thus it is hardly "comprehensive". Sorry to sound harsh, but this one is not yet ready. Go through peer review first, then come back to FAC. Batmanand | Talk 10:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand your objections, but the problem is is that there are few comprehensive web references available (Conners is excellent, but seems to be alone in its comprehensiveness), and there is little information provided about the company history, even provided by Lamy itself! To correct something you mentioned, I did note that the article was comprehensive on the examples of design -- I did not mention history. Dysprosia 10:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly my point. How can a corporate article be comprehensive if it contains scant little about the history of the company? You may want to read Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. Batmanand | Talk 23:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have read that article. My point is that how can a corporate article be comprehensive if there is little information available on the history of the company by means of references? That is hardly my fault :) Dysprosia 00:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Used some non-Lamy references to confirm data that Lamy provided (ie. awards) -- this should improve the number of distinct references available. Dysprosia 13:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Shouldn't you inculde the URL access date for each reference? Cvene64 12:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add these now. Dysprosia 12:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Object—poor prose. Tony 13:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you make some specific suggestions for improvement? Dysprosia 13:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. A pervasive lack of clarity; not enough commas (required for clarity of meaning, ease of reading and style); incorrect use of punctuation; other technical faults. Here are a few examples from the first sentences.

'founded the business in 1930, with the preexisting Orthos pen manufacturer. Lamy was also a pioneer in the use of moulded synthetic plastics in its manufacture.'

• 'with' is unclear: do you mean 'together with'? So he and Orthos collaborated to found Lamy? Or he took over Orthos and turned it into Lamy? Or what?

Resolved. Dysprosia

• Probably better to remove 'also', and most of the other occurrences of that word.

Resolved. Dysprosia

• What does 'its' refer to? Go through the whole article to ensure that the referent for each pronoun is clear.

I don't see any problem with "its" usage in the article. Dysprosia 07:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

'Lamy's product range reflects the intended practicality[1] of the products.'

• What does it mean?

What is said. Lamy pens are thought of as being practical. For one, Lamy does not just make fountain pens, but ballpoints, rollerballs, etc etc, and compared to other pen manufacturers they are not designed so garishly or for artistic purposes, but for practical ones. Dysprosia

'such as "scribble" for a mechanical pencil, a variant of which can take 3.15 mm graphite refills, useful for sketching'

• Is this one of Lamy's products? 'a' makes it sound generic. Is it the pencil or the refills in particular that are useful for sketching?

I thought that the fact that scribble was one of Lamy's products would have been clear since the start of the sentence says "Lamy products have a descriptive name". The rest of your comment has been resolved. Dysprosia 07:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

'Lamy refers to the products by prefixing "Lamy" to these descriptive names, here we simply use the descriptive name.'

• The comma should be a semicolon, shouldn't it?

I don't see why, but a grammar nazi can correct me on that. Dysprosia 07:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It's way below a 'compelling, even brilliant' prose that is required for a FAC. Can you find a word-nerd to go through it thoroughly.

I can see the point for "compelling, even brilliant" prose on an article that contains a large amount of discussion, where good prose deals with the facts of a matter in a neutral and unartificial way, but I fail to see why "compelling, even brilliant" prose is necessary for the impassionate and neutral description of products. It's certainly a fine line between sounding like the text is promoting the products and merely stating the interesting design characteristics and other features of the products. Perhaps you or someone else could possibly elaborate on this.

It's a bit slender for a FAC.

I don't believe there are any length requirements for FACs. Regardless, any expansion I or others could make is sorely limited by what resources available -- and I have already noted the dearth of easily accessible resources, again, this is hardly my fault...

Tony 06:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses, your contribution has been most helpful. Dysprosia 07:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Dysprosia: I'm afraid that the 'compelling, even brilliant' requirement is for all FAs, regardless of the nature of the topic. 'Compelling, even brilliant' does not mean elaborate, beautiful, poetic, or flowery. The beauty of English is that it can be plain and elegant at the same time. What we require is clear, plain, easy-to-read text; that would be regarded as compelling. The article lacks these qualities, and should not be promoted. Please find someone to copy-edit the whole text.

I am more than quite aware that it is a requirement. What I said is that I don't see how one can produce "compelling, even brilliant" prose in describing products. You mention that text is to be clear, plain, and easy-to-read -- I don't believe you've quite addressed this in your objections, as the objections you listed do not make reference to the bulk of the article. Dysprosia

To take up some of your responses:

'Lamy refers to the products by prefixing "Lamy" to these descriptive names, here we simply use the descriptive name.'—This consists of two stand-alone sentences, before and after the comma. Therefore, they must be separated by a stop or a semicolon, and not a comma. Read it out aloud and you'll see.

What I am saying is that they are not so clearly "stand-alone", the sentence is expanding on the use of descriptive names. Anyway, it's stupid to quibble about a minor point, so I'll change that. Dysprosia

Why not clarify by writing Lamy's mechanical pencil, instead of 'a' mechanical pencil?

Because Lamy do not produce one mechanical pencil -- they produce several, as evident in the article. Dysprosia

Who is doing the intending? Just remove 'intended' and it will be plain and clear.

Lamy is doing the intending, of course. The point of the sentence is to say that Lamy intend their products to be practical (see the reference) -- they have not independently found practicality in the market. Dysprosia 09:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony 09:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do my comments have to cover the whole article? I've given examples to show that the whole article needs thorough editing. Tony 11:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Because citing a few examples doesn't show that the whole article needs editing, it only shows you found those specific problems with the article. I obviously don't see serious problems with the rest of the article, and you do, so how are your objections to be actionable if you do not go through them in detail? Dysprosia 12:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't try this legalistic thing with me. Prove that my examples aren't representative of pretty appalling prose throughout. It's up to you to fix it up, and not up to reviewers to edit the whole article for you. Do some work. Tony 16:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please try not to get upset -- no one is trying anything legalistic. No one is asking reviewers to edit the whole article for me. What I am asking is for specific objections relating to the whole article, not vague insinuations. The guidelines at the top of the page say "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed." The point of this guideline as I see it, is that if someone has a problem with the article, that person should have an actionable reason why they have that objection, so that people can take action and respond to them and to fix them. Otherwise then resolving objections becomes nigh impossible, because it is not known what exactly is the problem. The problem is especially complicated when the matter is about something so subjective as to the quality of the prose, such problems are not always so obvious to readers, so you need to be especially specific in matters such as these. The onus is on you, the objector, to explain what is wrong with the article, precisely so I can "fix it up" and "do some work". I can't read your mind. Dysprosia 04:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

<sigh>—if you reread my comments, you'll see that there are a number of specific points, and instances where I've advised how you can go through the whole text to improve it. You need to get someone else to copy-edit the text, because you're not used to writing to the required standard in this register (e.g., your writing right here is full of errors). Someone with distance from the writing process and subject matter would be ideal.

You provided a number of comments that did not cover the whole of the article, and yet you complained that the rest of the article was not up to par. You are of perfect distance from the writing process and subject matter and yet you failed to provide details that the FAC process asks of you. We are not discussing the quality of comments that I have made here, since I am not submitting these comments for FAC evaluation. Dysprosia

None of my comments was a vague insinuation; I'm pointing you to specific ways in which the text can and needs to be improved.

I had to get you to elaborate what you meant by "poor prose" -- that is a vague insinuation, right there. Editors should not have to ask objectors to be specific in their objections -- the FAC process asks that you do that off the bat. Dysprosia

If you don't know 'what exactly is the problem' after reading the comments, then you shouldn't be preparing a FAC.

So if I don't know what's wrong with the article, I shouldn't be asking? Again, the onus is on you to explain what is the problem. Again, I can't read your mind. Dysprosia

The quality of prose has a subjective element, but writers and editors usually agree on the technical aspects that make a text plain and easy to read; in that respect, it's not subjective at all.

They can agree on the technical aspects when they are actually raised. You have only partially raised the technical aspects, and yet you make comments that the rest of the article has technical problems, fail to list them, and then somehow expect me to do something about it. Of course I can "get someone else to copy-edit the text", but that's not what's at hand here. Sorry to sound harsh, but if you don't want to explain in detail the problems you found with the rest of the article, which you are asked to do by the FAC process guidelines at the top of the page, then perhaps you should not be raising objections.

Tony 06:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you please put your comments in the right place in the thread? I shouldn't have to mop this discussion up after you. Dysprosia 07:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Further comments about poor prose. Dysprosia might consider not sniping about the formatting here and working on the article instead. The typical way that the standard of writing in FACs is critiqued is by making overall comments and providing specific examples. That is what I have done. The critique does not have to be comprehensive—merely an exemplification of problems. If Dysprosia can't accept the wider applicability of these comments, he should find someone else to edit the article thoroughly and skilfully. I note that s/he has taken no issue with the first reviewer's assertion that "some of the text is no brilliant prose"; that's odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs)

All experienced editors are obliged to use standard formatting practices on discussion pages, other users should not have to do this for you. All experienced editors are expected to sign their posts as well. That's not sniping, that's asking you to adhere to standard practice. Dysprosia

It's not odd. You may think so because you seem to have failed to understand the point I am raising. The first reviewer actually lived up to the FAC obligations by explaining his objections in detail -- at least that reviewer stated that "too many one sentence paras" was the problem with parts of the body of the article. Because that reviewer actually said so, I was able to fix it. You have only provided specific examples to the first few paragraphs of the article. I ask you, how on earth am I supposed to work on the article if you withhold describing what is wrong with the other half of the article? I could ask someone else to finish the job for you, but your obligation is for you to provide detailed and specific critique worded so other editors can take action. Dysprosia

Here's another problem sentence, the first I laid eyes on in a random selection:

"The steel Studio pens come with steel nibs, though the palladium Studio comes with a gold nib. The Studio design has won the Good Design Award[5], as well as the iF Design award in 2005"

"Though" should be used only if there's a contradiction; here, "and" is appropriate. "As well as" is a marked expression that appears unnecessary here; again, "and" is appropriate (why use one word when five will do?)

Now, this is another example of a grammatical problem ("though") and an instance of poor style ("as well as"). These types of issue pervade the text. Go through it and clean up the flabby expressions, grammatical problems and redundancies. Make every clause unambiguous. The prose is not "compelling, even brilliant".

Thank you for providing one example here. Now that you have done so, I can fix that problem. Dysprosia 03:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Why isn't this article part of any category? And why is there no see also section? Joelito (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The category problem is easily resolved. However, do articles (in general) require see also sections? Dysprosia 04:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No, articles do not in general require "see also" sections. Many editors (and I believe Raul654 is among their number) believe that if a topic isn't important enough to be referenced and linked in the main text, it's not worth giving a bullet point in a "see also" list. Inclusion in a category is more informative. Anville 15:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Dysprosia 03:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Lead is too short, as is the article as a whole. No history. No information about them as a business. I'm sorry to be a bit harsh, but it strikes me as just a sweeping overview of their catalogue and not much more. Ambi 07:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try and work on the former, but like I mentioned above, there's little so far I can do about history. Dysprosia 07:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've cobbled together a business history. Dysprosia 09:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The disputed sentences have been fixed. A general cleanup will come soon, and there are now tons of references in proper citation format.Judgesurreal777 12:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Business History section—It's a pretty boring list of increases in turnover and employment numbers, taken from some potted history or company manual. We'd like a wider angle, perhaps characterising the company's business strategy, or its relationship to its competitors and/or manufacturing as a whole. How did it differ from companies in similar industries in other countries? To be 'among the best' that WP has to offer, more is expected.

The same casually incorrect version of the English language is apparent here, as in the rest of the text. For example:

"In 1989, turnover increased to approximately 62 million DM, and had begun taking on employees as sleeping partners." So the turnover took on employees? Please explain "sleeping partners", if it's a technical term.

"In 1984, Lamy's export share increased to 33 percent." What, the share of national exports, or of the pen market? "Export share" is awkward.

Tony 12:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No, sleeping partners is linked -- we do not need to explain the term, even if it is red-linked. Furthermore, I believe "export share" must be an economic term as, if I remember correctly, this was the term used in the resources. Dysprosia 12:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You haven't addressed any of my points. You 'believe' that export share 'must' be an economic term. So what; make it 'share of exports', please. Are you going to let us into the secret of what 'sleeping partner' means, then, since there's no info on it? We'd love to know. The impression we're getting is that you're copying the text from somewhere without knowing what it means. Tony 13:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have addressed your minor technical point on grammar. I have not spoken to your earlier point about the section being "boring" because I happen to agree with you, and thus I had no dispute with what you were saying. I believe that "export share" must be an economic term because I'm not an economist. Are you? Since you now seem to have the belief that I'm "copying the text from somewhere without knowing what it means" (who is "we" here, you seem to be the only one who appears to have this view), would you rather we have no business information at all?

It's not my responsibility to fill redlinks on a FAC. Dysprosia 22:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

So is there a copyright issue here? There's no reference. People will expect that you understand what you're copying. You don't seem to. Tony 01:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The first reference on the page covers everything preceding it up to the section header. No sentences have been copied verbatim.

So in effect you are saying that I must learn about economics to add a short fact to the article? That's hardly practical or appropriate. Nor does a less-than-comprehensive understanding of a fact preclude me from adding it to the article. Do you strictly contribute inside your fields of expertise? I doubt it. Dysprosia 03:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm amused at your insistence on punching in colons to format this stuff to the right; it must be very annoying for people with small monitors, and is not strictly necessary. But I'll leave this clerical duty to you, if that's what you like doing. No, you don't have to be an economist; but you are expected to know what the terms mean if you're writing them in. You haven't yet explained 'sleeping partner'. I'm all ears. And 'export share' is hardly jargon—it would just be better rendered as 'share of exports'. You still haven't told us whether it's the share of national exports, or just of pens, or what. Tony 03:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, "All experienced editors are obliged to use standard formatting practices on discussion pages, other users should not have to do this for you"; to answer your question, when the rightmost indenting gets too long, often it is reduced back slightly. I shan't comment further on this in order to refrain from casting aspersions on other editors.

To answer your other comments, I have fixed the problem you describe; otherwise you are now making me repeat myself. The comments I made above: "No, sleeping partners is linked -- we do not need to explain the term", and "It's not my responsibility to fill redlinks on a FAC", still stand. Dysprosia 03:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, if the link is not active, you'll need to explain the meaning in the text. Pretty lazy option, isn't it, just link it and forget about it. Here, we are reader-oriented, not writer-oriented. Tony 06:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with laziness and I'll thank you not to imply that I am being lazy by doing so. You might benefit by acquainting yourself with Wikipedia civility policy. I remind you that this page is intended for the discussion of the nature and merits of the article, not of other editors. Regardless of our differences of opinion I expect other editors, including yourself, to at least behave in a civil fashion in discussions.

That being said, providing links in articles is a matter of avoiding redundancy -- if a target article exists, explaining the link and providing the link is redundant, as the reader can simply click on the link. Even if a target article does not exist, explaining the link target article is redundant -- provide the explanation as a stub in the target article. Again, it is not my responsibility to fill in redlinks on a FAC. Dysprosia 07:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well don't link it then, if you can't stand the 'redundancy'. Somewhere, the explanation needs to be accessible ... like, now. So I suggest you explain it IN the text. I don't believe that you know what it means ... Tony 12:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Either you have misunderstood me, or you are not reading my comments closely: I am saying that only linking is enough for the reasons I provided to you above.

It does not matter at all whether I know what the term means or not, since what I know is not under review at all.

I suggest that you also refrain from making potentially false assumptions about other editors -- I have provided you with this basic courtesy, I would ask you that you do the same. Dysprosia 12:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

So now no one knows what 'sleeping partners' means in this context. How silly. This attitude reinforces the suspicion that the article is largely copied from elsewhere, without attribution. Thus, it fails Criterion 2c as well as 2a. (Please count the indent colons carefully when you punch them in.) Tony 16:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If you do not desist from making fallacious accusations about my behaviour (of course there is attribution, try reading the References section on the page) and continue to have an incivil attitude (I shouldn't have to clean up after you and "count the indent colons" if you would simply follow standard Wikipedia practice), I'm going to refuse to discuss anything with you further. Based on your attitude, I doubt anyone else would be willing to either. Dysprosia 22:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, Dysprosia—you put the article up for promotion, so you can expect the prose to come under close scrutiny here: this is where the standards for WP are set. Yet instead of reacting positively, you've bickered and quarrelled, and taken criticism defensively and personally. These are technical matters, and they're not meant to be personal. IMV, the article still has serious problems, and two other reviewers clearly think likewise.

Let's take apart another, rather long sentence that, regrettably, forms a whole paragraph:

"Many designs in Lamy's product range have won numerous design awards, and many designs such as the design of the 2000 and the Safari mentioned below, amongst others, have been produced continuously since their inception -- for example the 2000 fountain pen was originally released in 1966 and is still in production today, with a large number of product variants including multisystem pens, mechanical pencils, all with the 2000 design."

• • 'Design' occurs four times, three of them in quick succession; 'many designs' occurs twice.

• • In this context, designs aren't produced; pens are.

• • Avoid 'mentioned below' if you can; it would be OK to remove it, I think.

• • amongst --> among (nowadays, like 'on' rather than 'upon', and 'while' rather than 'whilst').

• • The double hyphen should be a semicolon or a stop.

• • 'multisystem pens, mechanical pencils'—you're listing two items, so 'and' is required, not a comma.

• • Remove 'product' and 'today' as redundant.

• • 'with' twice: make the second one 'of'.

• • Commas after 'the design', 'example', and 'variants' would be typical in this fairly formal register.

Please try to take the criticism positively. Tony 02:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

PS Your new link to explain 'sleeping partner' is perfect. Why did we have to endure all of that unpleasantness to achieve this? (But you're refusing to respond, so that's probably for the best.) Tony 02:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"you can expect the prose to come under close scrutiny here" -- except it is quite clear here that it is myself here that has also been coming under close scrutiny here by yourself, we've had accusations from you that I've been lazy, you've questioned my knowledge of terms, and you've behaved boorishly by making unnecessary comments enjoying the fact that other people have to clean up after your formatting mess. We've had all of this, even after I've asked you to behave in a civil manner, which you've blatantly ignored. That is unquestionably not close scrutiny of the text.

"taken criticism defensively and personally" -- Another absolutely ridiculous and fallacious assertion. I can quote you several comments made by myself that clearly show the opposite. Any differences I have claimed with your statements were meant as a spur for further discussion, and I fail utterly to see how my responses to criticism that you have made could be construed as being "defensive" and taking the criticisms "personally".

"Let's take apart another, rather long sentence, which, regrettably, forms a whole paragraph:" -- It absolutely astounds me that I had to drag any semblance of detailed criticism out of you (which is what I want, contrary to your unsupported beliefs), and now here you are spontaneously providing it. Why could you not have done this earlier? Furthermore, are you going to make further accusations that I am taking your criticism personally if I attempt to calmly respond to your points?

"Why did we have to endure all of that unpleasantness to achieve this?" -- because I held a view contrary to your beliefs, you would refuse to discuss any further on the matter than to restate your belief. The unpleasantness, I would argue, has its origins in your behaviour.

"But you're refusing to respond, so that's probably for the best" -- Thankfully, for some reason, you've seemed to stop the personal attacks -- they're just now blatantly false comments. If you do recommence with the personal attacks, I'm not going to deal with you further. Dysprosia 03:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, so it's OK for you to call me 'boorish', yet you complain that I'm making personal attacks. Hello? I'd like to point out that from the outset, I provided technical criticism; my recent analysis of that sentence/paragraph is additional. Again, please try not to take it personally. Tony 03:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence justifying calling me "lazy"? I apologize for the term, but this is the impression that I receive from your behaviour. Dysprosia 03:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)