Wikipedia:Peer review/Singer Model 27 and 127/archive1

Singer Model 27 and 127
This peer review discussion has been closed. Hi y'all, I've put down everything I can think of or find about the subject, and now I'd enjoy hearing what you think about it. Thank you! Txinviolet (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments Here are some initial thoughts on a first-pass reading.
 * The article needs some clean-up to be consistent with WP:MOS, especially WP:MOS.
 * There are many sections in this article that have no citations, and in some cases they read like they are copied verbatim from your sources. The phrase "We have already mentioned Allen B. Wilson, inventor of the vibrating shuttle, and D'Arcy Porter and George W. Baker, inventors of the White Sewing Machine Company machine that made successful use of it...." sounds suspiciously like it is copied from something else. If that's not the case, be sure to avoid the use of "we", "this article", and other similar non-encyclopedic phrasing.
 * In the Identification Guide section, the phrasing "The following identification guide will help you decide which machine you have..." reads like a how-to guide, not an encyclopedia. I would suggest changing the heading to just "Identification", and reword to be more encyclopedic.  Avoid  using "you" and "your".  This section also needs citations.
 * The Vibrating Shuttle section needs citations.
 * I would suggest that this article is about the Singer machine, not the vibrating shuttle, and the info on the invention of the vibrating shuttle is digressive since Singer did not invent it. You might make a separate article on the vibrating shuttle, summarized here with a main article link.
 * The Power section needs citations throughout.
 * - PKM (talk)

Thank you PKM, working on it now... Txinviolet (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

All of your suggestions are now implemented. Thank you for taking the time to improve the article. Txinviolet (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Rename the section "Design credit" as History and make it the first major section, including any necessary sub-sections.
 * Call the second section "Technical details" or some such, and state all the pertinent features. Try to state as many pertinent details as possible in prose ie, remove some of the description from the tops of the tables and put it into paragraphs.
 * With each technical detail that is described, add (See gallery/table below). This can be turned into a hotlink which will jump to the appropriate gallery or table, if your reader wishes to do so.
 * Technical details should include the "Identification" section.
 * Don't overstate matters. Vintage Singer sewing machines all look alike implies that they literally cannot be told apart. I have not the slightest doubt that you can tell them apart very easily!
 * Don't talk to your reader. If this was a custom manual it would be find to say "This guide will help you decide which machine you have..." but this is an ancyclopedia and must simply state facts. Don't presume your reader owns a machine and wants to identify it. This section needs entirely rewriting. Something like:
 * While most vintage Singer Sewing machines have (such and such similarities), the Model 27 and Model 127 can be identified by (so and so differences)
 * Power, treadle, bobbin winder etc are all subheadings to "Technical details" (Any info that has crept in which is of an historical nature needs putting up above.
 * Group the tables and galleries at the end of the article, giving each a simple heading.
 * Hope that this is helpful! Amandajm (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Amandajm, you and PKM have given me a lot of work to do! Txinviolet (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

All of your suggestions are now implemented, with the exception of some of the re-sectioning advice, about which I have different opinions. :) Thank you for taking the time to improve the article. Txinviolet (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)