User:Njsrk9/sandbox

=Article Evaluation for Fowler Calculators= '''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?''' Includes a biography of W.H. Fowler instead of relegating that to its own page. Makes sense, probably, to avoid having two stubs. '''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?''' Seems neutral enough. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Lack of information about the calculators themselves. '''Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?''' Yes. One is a PDF stored on Wayback Machine, but probably not a problem. Sources support the claims. '''Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?''' Not even close. 80% of the History section is not cited. The sources that are cited seem fine, two of them are books that aren't free online so I cannot really check them. '''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?''' Hopp book is from 1999, maybe a newer version available by now? Info about how the calculators were made could be added, if there is information on it. '''Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?''' Nothing on the talk page '''How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?''' Stub. In the Companies and Computing WikiProjects. How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We haven't really talked about it in class, but I can see why. I had never even heard of a Fowler Calculator until now.

Ideas for Future/Changes
Not sure the plan I had for going into detail on individual calculators is going to work out. Can't find much info on anything besides the Long Scale and Magnum calculators. Tried to add a Textile Calculator section but there just wasn't enough there. Might go with the original idea of making a table with measurements and types of calculations of all the types of calculator I can find. Stone (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Life of William Fowler
After completing his degree Fowler took a different path pursuing a career as an editor for a weekly Manchester journal, The Practical Engineer. This change in focus would however set the stage for Fowler to begin the Scientific Publishing Company where he began his annual pocket book series Fowler’s Mechanical Engineer's Pocket Book in 1898 which covered a variety of mechanical, engineering, and other related trades.

Fowler would continue balancing editorial work while his son Harold who spent time studying electrical engineering began designing and developing calculators, eventually acquiring his own manufacturing shop which was likely financed by W. H. Fowler.

Following his corporation establishment, Fowler filed for the patent of several multi faceted models of Pocket calculators which he would continue to manufacture for 30 more years utilizing the Fowler's Mechanical Engineer's Pocket Book. W. H. Fowler would then pass away W. H. Fowler died in April, and his son and business cohort Harold would become owner of the firm.

The firm spent it’s following years expanding production and diversifying their calculators uses and capabilities striving to be used in surveying work, construction and also being capable of decimal calculations. Once World War II began in 1942, Jim Cookson became the new head manager eventually changing the name of the company to Fowlers Ltd. Cookson would late carry production and company practices after Harold’s retirement and into the 50s until it was liquidized in 1988. In between this time the company would introduce several more expansive models including the the Jubilee Magnum extra long scale calculator measuring 76in which was capable of five to six decimal figure calculations. Also notable was the Type B or Textile calculator. The company marketed its full range through Joseph Casartelli & Sons Ltd, scientific instrument makers of Salford, as well as through the Fowler's Pocket Books. Daryl Gichui (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Long Scale and "Magnum" Calculators
Following the patent and release of Harold's Long Scale calculator featuring two knobs on the outside rim in 1914, he designed the Magnum Long Scale calculator in 1927. As the name "Magnum" implies, it was a fairly large device at 4.5 inches in diameter—about 1.5 inches more than Fowler's average non-Magnum-series calculators. The large design meant that much larger calculations could be performed on it, "to four, and sometimes five, significant figures," according to the instruction manual. Another added benefit of the Magnum's size was its readability. The instruction manual claimed the calculator's size "permits of the use of larger figures and easier reading...Another important feature is that the scales are longer and admit finer graduation."

Peer Review by Ar8rn (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
1. What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?

Pretty well organized, History section is entirely chronological (as far as I can tell), nothing reads as repetitive or even boring despite being about obscure calculators. Very well condensed and factual.

2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

Minor grammar things—use more commas, set the entire History section in past tense. Lack of commas really confuses things sometimes, though some wording shifts could help with that too.

I’d like to see more in the “Types of Fowler Calculators” section to enhance/refer back to the History section, but I figure that’s on its way. If there are any particular examples of famous uses that needs to be put in History as well, currently the calculators are at most described as “notable”— answer “what makes these calculators most worth talking about?” if you can. What’s already written is good aside from punctuation.

Overall fixing the grammar should make the additions perfectly legible and Wikipedia-ready.

3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

Really it’s just the grammar/punctuation, mostly punctuation. Fixing that up will clarify everything.

As a fellow editor of a somewhat niche, technical article, I both feel for you and want my summary of the history to flow this well. Good job & good luck! Ar8rn (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Response from Njsrk9 (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the grammar situation. That will be worked on before going live.

I very much would like to add more information to the Types section, but I worry about only writing a sentence or two for the calculators that I cannot find a wealth of information on.

I feel like I am going to have to learn how to use a circular slide rule before I can really say I improved this article. Njsrk9 (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)