Talk:Mason Cash

[Untitled]
The article gives a brief summary to the history of the kitchenware brand Mason Cash, it also gives details and descriptions of its products.
 * It's also incredibly POV. Statements like "perfect ergonomic and functional design" and "the brand is renowned for its classic kitchenware" don't belong in an encyclopedia unless they're verified through third-party sources. Movingboxes (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The link at [3] is 404. The current link is http://www.masoncash.co.uk/products/mixing-bowls/cane-mixing-bowls.html. I couldn't work out how to correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenGulliver (talk • contribs) 08:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible COI
Rayware is the name of the parent corporation, as well as a major contributing editor to this article. Movingboxes (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

until i can souce the other information, how is this?
 * I'm not sure what you mean by this question. Can you rephrase?  Movingboxes (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

sorry, i have just stated the history of the brand which was already on here and mentioned where the brand now belongs. until i can source references for any other information, is the current text regarding mason cash suitable. i have text from other sites such as http://www.patricktaylor.com/mixing-bowl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayware (talk • contribs) 10:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

can the POV and COI issues now be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayware (talk • contribs) 11:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no POV tag on the article. The tags are for the COI (that's there because you're connected to the company you're writing about) and the fact that there are no references. Movingboxes (talk) 11:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

can it be put back to the way it was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayware (talk • contribs) 11:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It would still lack sources, as the article had no third-party sources to begin with. Movingboxes ([[User

talk:Movingboxes|talk]]) 11:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

i understand, but can you help me in what i should now do to rectify the situation.
 * Are there any third-party sources that talk about the company? See WP:RS. Movingboxes (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

thank you for your help. i have a few links which are all third party...how are these?

http://www.waitrose.com/food/celebritiesandarticles/cookingandrecipeideas/0106116.aspx

http://www.robertopiecollection.com/Application/Products/Mason-cash/mason-cash-GB.asp

http://www.patricktaylor.com/mixing-bowl

http://www.ceramicindustryforum.co.uk/casestudies/masoncash.htm

also..

a statement about Mason Cash being a design classic extracted from 'Design Classic: The Mixing Bowl' by Hugh Pearman- Sunday Times 31st October 1993.

i hope this is ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayware (talk • contribs) 11:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Those four websites all appear to be selling or promoting the product and are not appropriate. However, if there is a newspaper article about the company, that would be a good source.  Is the article available online?  If not, you may still use it as a source, as long as you are able to post the specific information about it. Movingboxes (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

i cannot find the online version for this, however, i do have the exact text from the article...

"Mason Cash's traditional: the brown colour is simply that of the local clay under a transparent glaze, the ridges pattern on the outside something that has changed only minutely for as long as anyone can remember. The design probably existed when potteries started here in 1800, and noday knows how long before that it goes back. The bowls feel exactly right for their task; weighty, but beautifully easy to hold. The ridged rim and the mouldings fit the hand perfectly, while the general proportions mean you can slip the bowl between elbow and ribcage comfortably and walk about while beating. The wide shallow shape is just right for getting your hands into for kneading. There is simply no argument about the mixing bowl. It is a perfectly ergonomic and functional design, all the better for having emerged from the mists of time rather than from a drawing board." Extracted from 'Design Classic: the Mixing Bowl' bu Hugh Pearman- Sunday Times 31st October 1993

is this ok to insert into the text along with its source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayware (talk • contribs) 13:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added a ref. The websites are ok for facts ..... opinion needs to be mich better sourced Victuallers (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)