Talk:Madman Muntz

message: There actually were seven "Mrs. Muntzes," including model Patricia Stevens; actresses Joan Barton and Diane Garrett; and Elgin natives Edie Parsons, Marieta "Mickey" Stickle and Marge Braun. He also dated movie star Ava Gardner and comedienne Phyllis Diller. http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/elgin-courier-news/news/ct-ecn-elgin-madman-muntz-st-1029-20151031-story.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.134.56 (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: wives

message: I am reverting the following edit by User:Daniel A. Shay, which is explicitly original research, but preserving it here in case it may aid in future additions to the article:
"From my personal experience, both the 4-track and 8-track cartridges ran at the same speed, 3.75 i.p.s. After the 8-track became dominant, the 4-tracks were sold at cut-out prices. I bought a few new ones for $1., whereas an 8-track sold for $5. and up. Because the 2 formats ran at the same speed, all you had to do was to snap a drive roller adapter into the 4-track cartridge to play them in an 8-track player. You could buy those roller adapters almost anywhere and you could swap them between different 4-track cartridges.
 	
The original author of this article could have gotten the Fidelipac cartridge, which indeed ran at twice the speed, 7.5 i.p.s. confused with Muntz's 4-track. Used with larger players, there was also a larger 4-track cartridge with longer playing times. These were also used at radio stations, also at 7.5 i.p.s."
John M Baker (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of original research 

message: This article has many references to books where no page numbers were ever given. I am surprised it passed FAC like this. Also the author was indeffed a couple of months after this passed FAC Bumbubookworm (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: After almost a year, I too have concerns about this article. The page numbers mentioned above is a problem, and there are also uncited statements throughout. I also found some additional sources while looking through Google Scholar and WP:LIBRARY, which makes me think that the article is no longer comprehensive. Is anyone interested in fixing up this article? If not, it might be nominated at WP:FAR. Z1720 (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think missing page numbers should be easy enough to find and add. Are there specific sentences that need citations? It would be more helpful in correcting the issues if you note them specifically. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry I did not respond earlier, I didn't see this until now. I added citation needed tags to the article on some places that need citations. My biggest problem is the additional sources that I found on the subject that should probably be added to the article. Are you willing to research these and determine their inclusion into the article? Z1720 (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  are you still willing to address the concerns? If not,  would you like to bring this to FAR? Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little confused here... you mention that you found additional sources that should be added. If this is true then it sounds like you've already performed WP:BEFORE, so why not add them yourself? That would be the easiest way. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, I do not have the time, determination, interest, or subeject expertise to bring this article back to FA status. Instead, I would rather that my role here remain as a reviewer, giving comments on how to improve upon the article. If someone is interested in working on this, I am happy to repeat my search for new sources that could potentially be added to the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to get into heavily editing this article as I don't think there's a problem with it. I think it's harmful to the project for someone to remove something from FA status when they know how to fix the problem they are seeing. WP:FIXIT is a pertinent guideline here. I'm trying not to be accusatory by saying that, it just seems very counterproductive to say "there's an issue and I know how to fix it but don't want to". I guess if FAR has to happen then so be it. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  We are all volunteers here, and articles do not have to have FA status. As a reviewer, it is quick for me to check for some problems (lack of citations, unreliable sources) but it takes a long time (hours, days, or sometimes longer) to see what is in the article, find better sources, understand what the source is saying when not an expert in the field, synthesise the information, and restructure the article when the new information is added. With 6,169 articles at FA status, and just under 4,000 which are being reviewed at Wp:URFA/2020, it is impossible for one editor, or even a small group, to maintain all of these articles to FA standard. I choose instead to post my concerns on talk pages, hoping that someone interested in the article will want to fix up the concerns. If no one wants to, and no one wants to actively maintain the article, then I don't think we should advertise an article as one of Wikipedia's best. If someone is willing to fix it up, I am willing to review the article after fixes are made, make minor edits to improve the article, and ask questions to help make it even better. Z1720 (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA concerns