This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Engineer boot has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 12, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Engineer boot. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mike Christie ( talk · contribs) 12:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll review this. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
an ankle strap style that revolved around metal rings: what does "revolved" mean here?
and fashioned over their "English Riding Boot" lasts: given that "last" is a technical term here, I'd at least link it, and I'd suggest paraphrasing this to be a little easier for someone unfamiliar with the terminology to follow.
On the overall basis, engineer boots were subverted in the shoe market: I don't know what "on the overall basis" means here, and "subverted" seems an odd word choice.
Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Regarding bull hide I've now seen the page scan; this seems to be a mis-nomer from the author. The dab page indicates a click-through to the Americanism Steer, although WP should not be considered reliable, I surmise the author meant gelded young male raised for beef production a few years old, not bull per se, meaning stud-bull.
Regarding access dates, much WP content, typically from the 2006-2008 period was OR, with determined recent editors, some not well-meaning and more interested in hostility towards others and 'showing chops' (I hope you understand this Americanism) than actually obtaining historically-accurate published sources, using keyword-searches to find allegedly-reliable sources that probably post-dated the WP content - ie, potentially WP:CIRCULAR.
The rise of the interweb has rendered WP policies out-of-date; anyone can establish a WP:SPS without any historic publication history, plagiarise content from other web-sources, slap a copyright notice on the footer, and it can and will be cited after keyword searches.
It is therefore important to know when sources were added, and to what pre-existing text; I accept I have to waste time trawling-through histories where I suspect things are not-quite right, producing a long-list, being one reason why I don't write as much prose in recent years.
Editors using keyword searches to produce made-for-entertainment videos using {{ cite AV media}} in a bogus-historic way, only sanctioned by WP:VNT is another example; in addition to Indy beetle's attempts at another article using weasel words and punching contentious content straight into the lede using emboldening, another unconnected example is where, after much warring between two Americans, American folk-hero Jay Leno's 2015 programme was used in a similar false-historic way, indicating an opinion-only of a primary-source, CoI, senior Kawasaki employee who admitted being only 12 years old at the time of the (disputed) alleged events (1971>).
A different example can be seen at Talk:Café racer#failed verification BBC ‘The Listener’, 25 March 1971 - the result of hours of work involving other non-connected WP editors. That's just one dubious citation dealt with.
Apologies to Mike Christie for the lengthy rant - the need to explain everything is why I do not interact with Indy beetle. Having established the background, I will now start to edit the article having read through it.-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 11:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Do you actually have this 2015 source, and does it actually use the term "bull hide". What, did I lie or something? Yes, admittedly I misrepresented source material concerning rockers & engineer boots about 9 months ago (not maliciously, I'll add, mostly from an over assumption), but are you really going to insinuate that I didn't properly use the source without trying to read it yourself?
I'm also not impressed with the use of a scant Google books target as part of the citation - not much use at allOh, my "scant Google books target" source did not "impress" you. Well, its published by a third party publishing company (even if its not Harvard or Cambridge University Press), we have no reason to up front question its reliability (any editor's personal experience can only count for so much in that regard). If you actually have a reliable source of your own to back up your assertions then please do introduce it to the article, as this is a topic with few available secondary sources already.
in addition to Indy beetle's attempts at another article using weasel words and punching contentious content straight into the lede using emboldeningWell once I again I'll let other people judge my 2016 edits in that case, where you—in a dearth of WP:GOOD FAITH—accused me of trying to get myself "noticed" with the emboldened name. At any rate, could you please point to where in this article I messed up, or would you prefer to point to my past edits on other pages you disagree with?
{{ clarification}} - "a pound-mass each" is not the normal WP way of indicating weight? A 'pound' - unqualified - is also a unit of currency. This should be formatted as {{convert|1|lb|abbr=on}}, giving 1 lb (0.45 kg)??
{{ dubious}} - this aspect of the description does not make sense; I have weighed my heaviest work-boots (short 7-inch lace-up, non-protective toecaps) caterpillar boots at 2lb (=900 grams) each. Others similar (Prospecta, two pairs in different leather types/finishes) being an economy version of Timberland are <2lb each (=800 grams). On this comparison, it's unlikely that double thickness, heavy bullhide boots (particularly the high-leg) would weigh as little as 1lb each.-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 12:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Highnoteboy, there's a decent source for the material you're removing, so I've undone your edit. Do you have other sources that say it's false? Please don't re-remove sourced material once it's been restored; we should discuss here why it might need removal. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Engineer boot has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 12, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Engineer boot. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mike Christie ( talk · contribs) 12:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll review this. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
an ankle strap style that revolved around metal rings: what does "revolved" mean here?
and fashioned over their "English Riding Boot" lasts: given that "last" is a technical term here, I'd at least link it, and I'd suggest paraphrasing this to be a little easier for someone unfamiliar with the terminology to follow.
On the overall basis, engineer boots were subverted in the shoe market: I don't know what "on the overall basis" means here, and "subverted" seems an odd word choice.
Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Regarding bull hide I've now seen the page scan; this seems to be a mis-nomer from the author. The dab page indicates a click-through to the Americanism Steer, although WP should not be considered reliable, I surmise the author meant gelded young male raised for beef production a few years old, not bull per se, meaning stud-bull.
Regarding access dates, much WP content, typically from the 2006-2008 period was OR, with determined recent editors, some not well-meaning and more interested in hostility towards others and 'showing chops' (I hope you understand this Americanism) than actually obtaining historically-accurate published sources, using keyword-searches to find allegedly-reliable sources that probably post-dated the WP content - ie, potentially WP:CIRCULAR.
The rise of the interweb has rendered WP policies out-of-date; anyone can establish a WP:SPS without any historic publication history, plagiarise content from other web-sources, slap a copyright notice on the footer, and it can and will be cited after keyword searches.
It is therefore important to know when sources were added, and to what pre-existing text; I accept I have to waste time trawling-through histories where I suspect things are not-quite right, producing a long-list, being one reason why I don't write as much prose in recent years.
Editors using keyword searches to produce made-for-entertainment videos using {{ cite AV media}} in a bogus-historic way, only sanctioned by WP:VNT is another example; in addition to Indy beetle's attempts at another article using weasel words and punching contentious content straight into the lede using emboldening, another unconnected example is where, after much warring between two Americans, American folk-hero Jay Leno's 2015 programme was used in a similar false-historic way, indicating an opinion-only of a primary-source, CoI, senior Kawasaki employee who admitted being only 12 years old at the time of the (disputed) alleged events (1971>).
A different example can be seen at Talk:Café racer#failed verification BBC ‘The Listener’, 25 March 1971 - the result of hours of work involving other non-connected WP editors. That's just one dubious citation dealt with.
Apologies to Mike Christie for the lengthy rant - the need to explain everything is why I do not interact with Indy beetle. Having established the background, I will now start to edit the article having read through it.-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 11:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Do you actually have this 2015 source, and does it actually use the term "bull hide". What, did I lie or something? Yes, admittedly I misrepresented source material concerning rockers & engineer boots about 9 months ago (not maliciously, I'll add, mostly from an over assumption), but are you really going to insinuate that I didn't properly use the source without trying to read it yourself?
I'm also not impressed with the use of a scant Google books target as part of the citation - not much use at allOh, my "scant Google books target" source did not "impress" you. Well, its published by a third party publishing company (even if its not Harvard or Cambridge University Press), we have no reason to up front question its reliability (any editor's personal experience can only count for so much in that regard). If you actually have a reliable source of your own to back up your assertions then please do introduce it to the article, as this is a topic with few available secondary sources already.
in addition to Indy beetle's attempts at another article using weasel words and punching contentious content straight into the lede using emboldeningWell once I again I'll let other people judge my 2016 edits in that case, where you—in a dearth of WP:GOOD FAITH—accused me of trying to get myself "noticed" with the emboldened name. At any rate, could you please point to where in this article I messed up, or would you prefer to point to my past edits on other pages you disagree with?
{{ clarification}} - "a pound-mass each" is not the normal WP way of indicating weight? A 'pound' - unqualified - is also a unit of currency. This should be formatted as {{convert|1|lb|abbr=on}}, giving 1 lb (0.45 kg)??
{{ dubious}} - this aspect of the description does not make sense; I have weighed my heaviest work-boots (short 7-inch lace-up, non-protective toecaps) caterpillar boots at 2lb (=900 grams) each. Others similar (Prospecta, two pairs in different leather types/finishes) being an economy version of Timberland are <2lb each (=800 grams). On this comparison, it's unlikely that double thickness, heavy bullhide boots (particularly the high-leg) would weigh as little as 1lb each.-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 12:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Highnoteboy, there's a decent source for the material you're removing, so I've undone your edit. Do you have other sources that say it's false? Please don't re-remove sourced material once it's been restored; we should discuss here why it might need removal. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)