Walter Hunt (inventor) was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofNew York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Invention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Invention on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InventionWikipedia:WikiProject InventionTemplate:WikiProject InventionInvention articles
According to the "Velocipede" page, Karl Drais invented it.ChamSampian (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ChamSampian and Jdcooper: - I took it out. It was User:Jdcooper (a Londoner) who initially put in "velocipedes" on creating the article back in 2006, however he has not edited for over a year.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an interesting well written article. I'd recommend, however, not having two sections, one at the beginning, one at the end, about his family and personal life respectively, since both sections cover aspects about his personal life. Seems these things should go into one section, perhaps with the name of Early life and family, following the lede. The contents of the Education section, two sentences, could also go into the section covering his early life, since it only involves two brief statements about his average education. Also, couldn't more be said about Hunt's legacy other than his invention of the safety pin? Though Hunt was inducted into the inventor's hall of fame for this, it seems more could be said about his legacy, given the many inventions he's responsible for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have never failed a GAN before, but I'm sorry to say that this does not come close to meeting the good article criteria. The issues are too numerous to list, but most noticeably:
The lead is not a summary of the article and needs a complete rewrite.
The infobox is not organized at all.
Incredibly awkward wording.
"He was the first born child to the family of twelve additional children born to Sherman Hunt and Rachel Hunt."
"Most of Hunt's friends and family members were spinners of wool and cotton and it was their lifetime occupation."
"Hunt became renowned for being a prolific inventor."
"Many of Hunt's inventions are in actual use today and are basically the same device as when he patented them more than a hundred years ago."
Unclear, run-on, and/or difficult to follow in many places.
The article repeatedly creates needless lists of some or all of his inventions.
Sentences such as "One time in 1816 his expertise in mechanics was applied to a flax spinner and allowed the flax mill operator and a local community member to get a patent in 1823 on a combination spinning and roping apparatus machine."
Dubious/exaggerated info.
He isn't mentioned at all on the Wikipedia article for the fountain penorstreet sweeper and his contribution to the sowing machine was one of many, arguably not even the most significant, despite what this article suggests.
It doesn't help that the top two sources are paywalled.
Hey @Doug Coldwell: In your last edit, you added a cite template with a duplicate volume parameter. I don't have the source, so I wanted to ask you which value is correct. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 15:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@IAmChaos: Good catches. Thanks. Fixed duplicate volume. Submitted GAN. Do you do reviews?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not, sorry, I just came across this page by the error message I posted about. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 15:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some images are tagged as PD because they were prepared by a US government employee, but as far as I can see that's not the case. A patent application is prepared by the inventor. However, putting the image in a point counts as publication, so it's not an issue for GA, since they're old enough to be PD anyway. I suggest fixing the tags, but it won't matter for this GAN.
The lead says he invented the streetcar gong "that is used throughout the United States" but the body doesn't say this; it only says it was once in use by most horse-drawn vehicles in NYC.
Done added used throughout the United State with reference.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cut "one thing led to another" from the lead; this is not encyclopedic tone.
The lead asserts he invented "safety pin, sewing machine, repeating rifle, and fountain pen": this appears to be too strong a claim. He's the inventor of the safety pin but for the others he is not the person now mainly credited with their invention, as far as I can tell. For the fountain pen his own patent just says "new and useful improvement", not that he is the inventor of the fountain pen.
"Others made millions of dollars from his devices, one in particular was the safety pin." I don't see support in the body for this except for the safety pin. I don't think we can count the paper collar for this, since this is in reference to devices for which he sold the patent.
Done - copy edited lead Others made millions of dollars from his safety pin device. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"he invented fire engines, police stations": I think we need to be more specific. Presumably he invented some improvement or redesign of these, not the entire concept.
"and another was Walter Hunt’s 1849 patent model for the first American safety pin": suggest cutting this; you cover the safety pin in detail further on in the article.
"He also invented the Antipodean Performers suction-cup shoes used by circus performers to ascend up solid side walls and walk upside down across high ceilings": this is sourced to a newspaper that says "a pair of shoes that enabled a circus performer to walk up walls" and the Smithsonian Magazine, which says "ceiling-walking circus device". Neither says the invention was ever used; the newspaper implies it was effective but I think that's not a good enough source to say in the article that they worked as intended. I would rephrase this as "claimed" or something similar.
"It had a characteristic of an eye-pointed needle": does this just mean "It had an eye-pointed needle"? If not I don't understand it. And this paragraph is repetitive; we mention the eye-pointed needle three times, and the fact that it created an interlocking stitch three times.
"Had he seen the newspaper article titled..." so what was in that article? Why is it relevant?
Done - 1836 newspaper article expanded upon with a reference to that article.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The basic design is the same in the twentieth century as when Hunt innovated the device in the nineteenth century and is manufactured inexpensively." Is manufactured inexpensively now? Or it was then?
Done - Is manufactured inexpensively now. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes!!! @Mike Christie: Yes, I guess I did forget about this one. I'll start working on it today after lunch. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lede mentions that the subject invented the gongs in use in street cars today... Street cars are not in use today? Was this article written in 1910? 99.33.184.99 (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Result: There is a consensus to delist.Gusfriend (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article had substantial amounts of content removed for being a copyright violation; this diff is the removal and this is the source. The source is paywalled to Gale through TWL. There is a very high chance that I have missed more close paraphrasing and copyright violations from both this source and others, as I only removed the most blatant of what I could see. The original addition was also blatantly copy-pasted, and then subsequently edited down. There was an effort by the nominator to reword, but it barely changed the actual copied text. There was also plagiarism, and there's a chance that more needs to be attributed. The copyright issues means that this article is possibly not broad enough as it stands. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, this needs to be delisted. Given the amount of CV already removed, we can't assume good faith on anything else. It would need a complete rewrite from top to bottom from a completely different editor to retain GA status, and I doubt that's going to happen. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, per PMC's comments. I was the GA reviewer and did not spotcheck the sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Honestly, the issues go beyond copyright violations. Irrespective of that, if I had reviewed the article, I would not have passed the page in its current state because of the quality of the prose (WP:GACR point 1). For instance:
He also made improvements to guns, cylindro-conoidal bullets,[22] ice-breaking wooden hull boats, paraffin oil candles, velocipedes, machines for making rivets and nails, and self-closing inkwells.[23][24] He also invented the Antipodean Performers suction-cup shoes claimed to be used by circus performers to ascend up solid side walls and walk upside down across high ceilings.[20][25] He did not realize the significance of many of his inventions when he produced them and sold off most of his patent rights to others for low prices making little for himself in the long run - Three sentences in a row that start with "He" make for a very awkward paragraph indeed. I'm pretty sure the second sentence also needs a comma after "shoes".
He developed the first modern feasible operating sewing machine[20] sometime between the years 1832 and 1834[28] at his Amos Street shop that was up a narrow alley in Abingdon Square[29] at the borough of Manhattan in the city of New York. is a run-on sentence and needs to be split into preferably two, or even three, sentences. Also, "at the borough of Manhattan in the city of New York" is both unnecessarily detailed and technically grammatically correct. No one would say "at Manhattan", and most people would just say "in Manhattan, New York City".
He gave as reasons for not procuring a patent that 1) he was busy with other businesses then; 2) the expense of getting the appropriate drawings and paperwork together to register a patent was more than he could afford and; 3) the difficulty of introducing the new sewing machine into public use, saying it would have cost two thousand (equivalent to $54,290 in 2021) or three thousand (equivalent to $81,430 in 2021) dollars to start the sewing machine business. - Technically, this is not a run-on, but it is a very long sentence, and "1) 2) 3)" aren't necessary in a prose list like this.
These are just examples and not a full review. Since large parts of the article have been determined to be copyright violations, the article would have to be rewritten anyway, but these examples are representative of what improvements are needed. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I passed it, and I'm aware the prose is weak, but I interpret "clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct" as allowing some weak prose through in comparison to what FACR requires. These sentences convey what they mean to convey and aren't technically incorrect (except for that run-on sentence). I do copyedit as I review, but it's hard to do that without access to the sources. Other GA reviews I've looked at seem to be setting the prose bar higher than my interpretation of GACR so I think I'm going to end up being a bit more stringent in the future, if only to avoid criticism. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie, your prose comments are fine with me. I'm just saying that, if I had reviewed this article, I would have required a few more tweaks to the prose. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, I've always understood FA-level's "well-written"—its prose is engaging and of a professional standard—to be significantly above that of GA's "well-written". GA as you've quoted would seem to require a level of quality above "some weak prose": clear and concise is frequently not particularly engaging but I wouldn't expect it to be weak or repetitive if we're calling it "good". (Personally, I've always had trouble elevating my workmanlike prose to "engaging" or "of a professional standard". With some care and self-editing, however, "clear and concise" is well within my wheelhouse, along with a bit of variation in structure.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably not the right forum for an extended discussion of GA prose requirements, but I've started being stricter about prose in my reviews, just because that seems to be the community norm. However, I think "clear and concise" doesn't mean the same as "good" prose; I think a sentence can be grammatical, not repetitive, and not ambiguous, and hence meet the "clear and concise" standard, without being considered good prose. A lot of Doug's prose is like this, in fact; he is not a fluent writer, and his sentences can be stilted and awkward, but they're usually not ungrammatical or ambiguous. It's moot as I'm going to raise the standard of prose I require in a GA review, and it appears other regular reviewers are also requiring a higher standard than my original interpretation would support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist With all of the issues here it should be delisted. Gusfriend (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The issues here are damning and would require a total rewrite to keep GA status. The CV alone is more than enough, let alone bad prose. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Done - updated link, furnished to show it was published in 1877. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
