Talk:Edelbrock

Dates to monitor
/Growth (first paragrpah)

Photos, please
How about a photograph of a few of the Edelbrock products: an early flathead dragster, a modern small block Chevy 4bbl intake, or a close-up of an installed Hillborn injection above an Edelbrock intake? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.178.98.81 (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Historics Racing
Vic and his family currently participate in historics racing such as the Monterey Historics.


 * If it belongs anyplace, I would put that in the article on Vic Edelbrock, Jr.. It really has no bearing day-to-day operation of the company or has any relevance to it's business or profits. Honestly, it's just rich people driving unbelievably expensive cars pretending to race. It doesn't relate at all to the real racing that the company and the aftermarket industry was founded on. MiracleMat (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Flagicon/seal in infobox
In order to prevent an edit war I am starting a section on here so we can discuss the merits of having flagicon/seal in the infobox. I removed the flagicon/seal with the following edit summary: "Removed flagicons per WP:MOSFLAG. I was then reverted and I reverted back when I should have started the discussion on here.

My rationale is the flagicon and seal add nothing of encyclopedic value because the name of the country is next to the flag and name of the state next to the seal. They are merely being used as decoration therefore not being helpful to the reader, so they should be removed from the infobox. Aspects (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this really the best use of your time here on Wikipedia? Go write an article instead of destroying mine MiracleMat (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Bringing an article in line with the Manual of Style is not destroying it. Once again, I ask you to read Ownership of articles before you claim any Wikipedia article as your own.  Instead of discussing me, could you please provide a rationale for why the flagicons belong in the infobox? Aspects (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Again I ask, is a couple of little flags REALLY worth this discussion?????? Will an American flag ruin the article? Is it really that bad to have a little picture of a flag in the info box? Have you ever written anything original or do you make it a hobby to wreck other people's work? Did you have a bad dream about flag icons attacking you? Were you beaten up by flag icons on the playground as a kid? Or maybe you just went trolling through wikipedia policy pages and you discovered something that gives you and edge to whitewash peoples articles? Go do something productive with your time. MiracleMat (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you spend more time discussing me than the flagicons, I am going to ask for a third opinion at the appropriate talk page, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (flags), even though you already reverted User:ArcAngel's third opinion on the state seal without an edit summary or any discussion here on the talk page. Aspects (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You want a third opinion, here it is. The US flag is unnecessary, and US or United States (that's quite clear in WP:FLAG) should be linked instead (it isn't for some reason). As for the state (or city?) seal, it's the first one I've ever seen at icon size in a Wikipedia article. It's completely unindentifiable, unnecessary and useless. I mean, at least some flags are relatively easily identifiable at icon size, but seals are pretty obscure things (i.e. not common knowledge, by any stretch), even at full size, and should be confined to articles about the entity they represent (city/state/organization). You might as well put the city/state motto instead, it's just as pointless as a superfluous identifier in an infobox that is not about the city/state itself.--Boffob (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * MiracleMat, you seem to have a serious case of WP:OWN and are borderline WP:NPA and Incivil. As for the flags i feel WP:MOSFLAG applies Gnevin (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Per the third opinions of both Boffob and Gnevin, I am removing the flagicon seeing how ArcAngel has removed the state seal again. Aspects (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If the flags are so unimportant that they do not merit a discussion, then they may as well be removed. —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * THANK YOU. Finally somebody on my side. I TRIED to delete this retardedly long and pointless discussion to unclutter the talk page, but some (insert non-offensive adjective) other user felt it was nazi-like to "blank" the talk page and brought it back after I had done so. Maybe we need to put it up to a vote. You know, have and AFD discussion on whether or not to speedy delete the thread. That's an effecient use of time. My vote: Super speedy delete without prejudice MiracleMat (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well we obviously read Centrx's note differently. I took Centrx to mean if a person cannot discuss the merits of what they are trying to include in an article, then what they are trying to include should be removed from the article.  As for your deletion of this topic from the talk page, first it was an active discussion that was being commented on.  Secondly, it is an act of vandalism to delete other people's posts on talk pages other than your own user talk page.  See Vandalism under Discussion page vandalism in the chart.  If the talk page was too long, which right now it is not, you need to archive the page rather than just delete topics.  See Talk page guidelines.  Lastly, AFD stands for Article for Deletion to see whether or not an article is notable enough to be on Wikipedia.  Topics on an article discussion page dealing with content of the article would not be deleted from the discussion page. (Original comment posted at 18:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC))Aspects (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow you have issues. Seeing a therapist? Make an appointment. Can't leave anything alone. An ACT OF VANDALISM? Dude, get over yourself and go do something productive. Yes I know what AFD stands for. It was a remark designed to generate humor through sarcasm. Sorry that concept totally escapes you. MiracleMat (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed
The following link was removed per the advice of the mentor in an attempt to bring the article up to good article standards, but I want to leave it here for a reference:
 * Application data and product details for Edelbrock parts

New sections

 * Brands
 * Aftermarket industry

Re Edelbrock
Thanks for your request - I'll certainly take a look at the article for you, though I won't have time this evening. I'll try to get to it tomorrow, but feel free to give me a nudge if I haven't posted anything here in the next couple of days ;) All the best, EyeSerene talk 19:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've been through the article with the GA criteria in mind. You've done a good job on it, although I don't think it's ready for GA yet. If I was conducting a review, I'd be looking for the following points to be addressed:
 * Lead: this is too brief at the moment. The lead is not so much an introduction to an article, as a summary of it (almost a mini-article in its own right). A good rule-of-thumb is that, if everything else was deleted leaving only the lead, a reader should still be able to come away with a decent understanding of the article's main points. See WP:LEAD for more information.
 * Prose: This is reasonably good, but needs work in places. I spotted one contraction, "wasn't", that should be changed to "was not", and you need to watch out for language that could come across as editorialising, unencylopedic, or trade-speak. Some examples:
 * "It transformed through the years into what we know today as sprint cars" Avoid "we"
 * "Joaquin Arnett and Tony Capanna were fooling around with it in their hot rods, as well." Perhaps 'experimenting' rather than 'fooling around'? (and although you've linked them, it would help to briefly explain who these people are/were)
 * "... it launched the company into fast-forward." This could be expressed more encylopedically.
 * Manual of Style: The layout looks good, although you should avoid "The" in section headers, and "References" should be decapitalised in "Notes and References". See WP:MOSHEAD for more info. The external link to streetperformance.com may be problematic, as it's linking to a shopping guide site (see WP:LINKS), but I think you can make a case for retaining it so I'd leave it in for now and see if anyone objects later ;) The article is over-linked in places - generally only links that add to the value of the article are needed, so obvious terms ('farming, 'racing' etc) needn't be wikilinked. Finally, numbers less than ten are normally written in full.
 * Referencing: You've done this quite thoroughly, and the sources look mostly ok. I'm not convinced by the fundinguniverse.com and answers.com sources though - these look like reproductions of the same information (and I know answers.com uses Wikipedia as one of its sources, so doesn't meet WP:RS). Some GA reviewers may ask for all citations to be formatted using the templates on WP:CITET, but at a minimum all book references need ISBNs, and all web references should give the access date and publisher. There are still some areas that require additional cites (mainly the timeline, but more on this below!)
 * Coverage: The article goes into quite a bit of detail on Edelbrock's early history, with a potted bio of its founder and his achievements, but skates over much of the actual company history. I was left at times wondering if this was actually about Vic Edelbrock rather than the company itself - I realise that the two are intimately entwined, so am not objecting too much, but I feel the focus of the article needs some work. The first section (The beginning) is largely irrelevant; you could just link to Vic Edelbrock for most of that. The Racing section also seems to be more about the man that the company, though since they share the same name I couldn't always tell. Personally, I'd be inclined to remove the timeline as a separate section, and use it (with the non-company related bits and the trivial information - QS-9000 and ISO 9001 etc - taken out) as the basis for organising the article, but this might involve a significant re-write...
 * Neutrality: Having read the article, I came away with the impression that you're something of an Edelbrock fan. Nothing wrong with this, but I shouldn't really be able to tell ;) I think this may be a function of the prose, which reads in places like a company press release (examples: "Its simple compact design launched a generation of innovations that stood the test of time.", "Vic led the entire aftermarket industry through its most difficult, turbulent and critical time period.") Hopefully a few tweaks here and there would sort that. Are there any independent reviews of the company - it's performance, products etc (both positive and negative)?
 * Images: the article is well-illustrated, though the 1946 catalogue image needs looking at. You've claimed 'Fair Use', but this needs to be per article. It's currently only used in this article, so you'll need to change "catalog" in the Non-free use media rationale box on the image page to "Edelbrock" (2 instances). The image is not low-resolution, as claimed in the infobox; it should be resized and re-uploaded. I'm also not 100% sure about the use of the 'Russell' logo under a Fair Use claim; that may be worth asking at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content.

I hope the above helps. There's quite a bit there, and company articles aren't the easiest to write, but you might find looking at some existing company GAs useful - International Speedway Corporation, Hochtief, and Poundland are good examples. Please get in touch if there's anything else I can do, and thank you for your interest in GA assessment. All the best, EyeSerene talk 11:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer review by User:Royalbroil against GA criteria

 * Images: Some images need attention. Fair use images need to have fair use rationale, which they do. I highly recommend all free use images be transfered to Wikimedia Commons, which isn't done. Several images to not have the Commons "Information" template, especially ones by MiracleMat. They definitely need description, source, author (likely Own work ), date, etc. More review when time permits.  Royal broil  05:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

*"Since the company went private again, revenue findings have not been available to the general public." When did Edelbrock go back to being private?
 * "The company has five locations..." How does this total up to 5. I don't understand.
 * "Today, Edelbrock manufactures over 8,000 automotive parts for racers and hobbyists, focusing on performance. The company relies on online and catalog resellers and thus offers no direct sales for the bulk of its catalog." - both sentences should be sourced
 * Need to source - "Originally, Vic had no intention of producing any additional manifolds, but the overwhelming response following his phenomenal speed in a 1932 Ford prompted Vic to make more."
 * Need to source - "...produced aluminum racing cylinder heads, in addition to manifolds, which quickly gained him notability among hot rodding hobbyists."
 * Source "Edelbrock produced the first cylinder heads for the Ford flathead."
 * "This feat was never duplicated in the history of midget racing" - which part of the feat? The only car to win on back to back nights? I have trouble believing that. The only car to win at Gilmore one night and Orange Show Stadium on the following night?
 * "Its simple compact design launched a generation of innovations that stood the test of time." "stood the test of time" definitely can't stand as is. It is either original research or POV. The only way to keep that phrase is to quote reliable source - like saying "...that Muscle Car magazine says "stood the test of time". "[citation]. Simple and compact should also be sourced.
 * I trust that citations at the end of a group of text is the source for the whole group of text, including all facts in the grouping. For instance, "A critical turning point in the company's history was the 1964 decision to build a small-block Chevy intake manifold for a 4-barrel carburetor."
 * There are too many choppy paragraphs and sentences in the section. You can combine most into a few paragraphs.
 * "advertising through a $250,000 per year(2004) contract with NASCAR" needs to be sourced since money statistics always need sourcing.


 * I doubt File:Small-Block-Chevy-Edelbrock-Manifold.jpg is allowed as a fair use image since it is possible for someone to take that picture. They would have to be a racer with that model, but it certainly is possible. The template is Template:Di-replaceable fair use. If you want, I can speedy delete it if you leave me a message somewhere requesting it. I could go through the process of nominating it or you/I could ask another admin for their opinion.
 * File:Edelbrock-Slingshot-manifold.jpg doesn't have a source listed. It looks like a promotional image. If you didn't take the photo yourself, you might as well have it deleted too. I know, it adds a lot to the article, but these images aren't allowed.  Royal broil  13:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright
There seem to be a lot of sentences in this article that are very close to the wording found in the cited articles. Also, some of the citations don't seem to point to the actual source of the information. For example, the sentence "Vic Edelbrock Sr. was born in a small farming community near Wichita, Kansas in 1913." is taken word for word from the Edelbrock website, but the citation is to hemmings.com. (Perhaps Hemmings plagiarized?) In any case, someone should go over this article, checking it against the sources. Sorry, but I don't have the time to do it. -- Sift &amp;  Winnow  16:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a major concern. You have to rewrite information and not take it word for word. It's can't be very close. Some people suggest that you read the information, and write it about 1 minute later. See WP:PLAGIARISM for a disputed guideline. I rewrote some text that was taken word for word.  Royal broil  11:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

One HP/cuin
" 1958 - Vic Edelbrock, Jr. graduates from USC; Edelbrock is the first to achieve one horsepower per cubic inch ". Doubtful. See the 1956 Chrysler 355hp 354 for one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.229.166 (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing it up, it is an important distinction to get right. I provided a source for the statement, although it is their official website which makes it questionable. The 354 article says it was a special engine and I assume this article is using only standard production engines. Do you have any other cases where there exists a solid reliable source like a major magazine, newspaper, etc.? You'll need a very reliable source to dispute this claim.  Royal broil  13:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edelbrock. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927032858/http://www.worthyofhonor.com/Inductees/Edelbrock_Vic.htm to http://www.worthyofhonor.com/Inductees/Edelbrock_Vic.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit Request
Chris Douglas has been named the new president and CEO: https://www.sema.org/news-media/enews/2022/50/f-150-lightning-named-truck-year-edelbrock-names-chris-douglas-president

https://www.enginebuildermag.com/2022/12/chris-douglas-named-president-ceo-of-edelbrock-group/

https://www.performanceracing.com/magazine/industry-news/12-12-2022/chris-douglas-named-president-ceo-edelbrock-group

(I disclose that I work for Edelbrock). Unitedkick (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Lewcm Talk to me! 20:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)