Talk:Plasterwork

message: This article is essentially a copy of the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition article on Plasterwork.  It contains a lot of technical details that may no longer be accurate or relevant.  It should probably be rewritten to remove out-dated references and add current information, or perhaps merged into the Plaster article. -- Davnor 18:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ye olde talk

message: :PPS well i wrote it but it's ugly :) --Bloodkith (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: tools of the trade and modern technique

message: The article is very Eurocentric. Very little of the methods sections applies to Australia and all the brand names are British? For example my father was the first here to use a drill to mix plaster (in 1972 and he had to make his own mixing attachment because none were available here) and it didn't catch on. I prefered mixing it in a wheelbarrow with a shovel because it gave larger quantities with less chance of lumping so using a drill was generally reserved for a labourer only needing to supply a single tradesmen. We use only bright red sand. Lathing is virtually unknown here with almost all work on concrete or brick. Hair is never used. The "two main methods" of interior plastering are not done by tradesmen here. The first is not considered plasterwork and is done by the labourers (called gyprockers) who install the sheet rock or even by the carpenters who erect the walls they are attached to and Veneer plastering is never done at all. Three coat work is the standard for all work. Plasterer and labourer tasks are strictly segregated ie: no plasterer is allowed to clean up anything but his own tools. The list goes on. I'd do some rewording myself but I have not been in the industry for many years and have no idea what has changed. Wayne (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Scot's pine became effectively extinct outside of Scotland some 400 years ago and even in Scotland I dont think the forrests are commercially viable. Wayne (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs work 

message: This article has only two references.  Can someone help?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.177.177 (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The article reads in part as an instruction manual, which violates WP:NOT: "Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes.Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not" The section on laborer's tasks is the biggest problem, since it is in imperative mode, contrary to WP:NOT, full of  "Do this. Then do that."  It could describe how workers do something (or more accurately how they did it in 1911) and eliminate the "do this, do that" language.  It is especially problematic that a reader can't tell which instructions are from old Britannica and which are someone's original research, since there are only TWO inline references ion the entire long article. Edison (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I found and read the 1911 Britannica article and it does not contain this "how to section" which thus appears to be original research. This may be someone's observations when doing plastering, or something they read in a book, but it must be referenced to a reliable source to remain in the article. Even then it should be less of an instruction list. Edison (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Instruction manual