Talk:Guitar manufacturing

Recommendations and Potential Future Edits
I think the article is well organized but the organization could become more clear to the reader if sub-section titles were edited slightly. I think by changing "Form and Materials" to "Materials" and changing "Tools and Processes" to "Traditional Manufacturing Process" the organization becomes more clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpsutter (talk • contribs) 16:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the article does a good job outlining the history of the guitar manufacturing process as well as current technologies and materials. However, I encourage a slight editing to the "Introduction" section since it is somewhat redundant given the preceding introduction. Perhaps the article could be made better by combining the two and eliminating the "Introduction" section. By doing so I believe the article will adhere to the common Wikipedia article structure: brief introduction preceding the table of contents, followed by a history section, etc... --Hdelossantos (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Great observation. I will combine the two sections, allowing for a more 'wiki'-ized flow :) --XTommyGunx (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional Explanation of Edits
I have recently made an addition to the paragraph on types of wood. I thought the sentence regarding the ability to use any type of wood was a little misleading. I just briefly mentioned how different woods make different sounds. Elaboration is certainly possible, but I wasn't sure if it would interrupt the flow of the section.

-- Excellent. That statement is what we were trying to portray, but your quick edit has clearly stated it. Thanks :) --XTommyGunx (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a good article.
Third-rate, at best. I've tacked a Refimprove here, but this understates the need as I'm unconvinced the article ought to exist at all. Reads like someone's highschool essay — which is not a bad thing, but certainly is NOT Wikipedia's mission. An early indicator of well-intentioned overenthusiasm is the apparent belief that EVERY noun MUST be proper (capitalized).

If anyone wants to defend it, I am willing to run through and mark up the errors and overreach that presently give it zero chance at credibility. Taking a larger view, the article NEEDS to be properly integrated with other articles that are rather obviously in close relation. Let's start with Luthier and Electric guitar design.

But before that can properly be completed, everyone needs to get hold of some common sense: the TITLE says the article is about manufacturing. Therefore, it is most certainly NOT about luthiery, or about small shops that turn out individual instruments and the occasional run of dozens of similar guitars. Therefore, ALL reference to such small shops — past saying "that's not what this article is about; see other article FFI" — MUST be removed. (And I have removed the baseless claim that a luthier is "professionally trained in guitar manufacturing," considering not only my previous statement but that ANYONE can learn how to build a decent guitar without spending a single fleeting moment as a student or apprentice.)

As well, the distinction MUST be made between guitar manufacture and guitar brand. Many companies do not actually own ANY industrial facilities, instead contracting with others to meet their specs, or simply putting the purchaser's logo on the vendor's standard-line models. This is NOTHING NEW, people: look up Silvertone (brand) guitars, & note that Sears had them built "by various companies, including Danelectro, Valco, Harmony, Thomas, Kay and Teisco"and NEVER actually built a guitar themselves. Gibson owns a factory that builds nothing but Epiphones; Epiphone itself owns no factory, and therefore IS NOT a manufacturer. Neither Squier nor Washburn are manufacturers. I doubt these are the only instances. Weeb Dingle (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Examples: the article does not mention binding or laminate or inlay. Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)