![]() | Manistee Watch Company was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This orphaned
talk page,
subpage,
image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under
CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia. If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. |
![]() | This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I need help. I just changed Louis Kahn to Julius Kahn in a sentence that says who invented the concrete reinforcing system used in the Manistee factory. I'd like to make a footnote to back that up, but I can't figure out how. The footnote would contain the following information: The source is Structure (that's the name of a publication), April 2013. The article was written by Ryan Salmon, EIT and Meghan Elliott, P.E., Associate AIA. The URL is http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=1636 . The text I'd like to quote is "The "Kahn System" was invented by Julius Kahn, who filed a patent for it on December 11, 1902."
Of course, this doesn't PROVE that this same Kahn system was used in the Manistee factory, but unless a different person named Kahn violated the patent and offered a different concrete system under the same name (which seems unlikely), it had to be Julius Kahn's system.
It definitely wasn't Louis Kahn, who appears to be no relation. He was 7 years old in 1908 and had just immigrated from Russia with his family.
If anyone can help me fix this, I'd appreciate it. I don't want to leave this change unsupported by reference. Gms3591 ( talk) 09:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This orphaned
talk page,
subpage,
image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under
CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia. If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: David Eppstein ( talk · contribs) 02:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Extremely disorganized: basically a big lump of text in a "history" section, with almost nothing else, and within that section a collection of isolated sentences in a seemingly-random order with paragraph breaks added at seemingly-random points between some of the sentences. Information is in the wrong order: for instance we learn that the watches were shipped "about 30 miles away" before learning where they were shipped from. Although the "Legacy" section is short, only the first two of its seven sentences make sense for that section.
Self-contradictory: a sentence early in the history says that "some" of the movements were jeweled, while a different sentence later classifies the movements by numbers of jewels implying that all were jeweled. A sentence early in the history says that the watches were cased by "other companies", while a sentence in another paragraph says they were cased by one specific company. The lead says "a range of prices" while later we learn "five dollars each".
Vague: "other companies", "other inexpensive watches on the market". "16 and 18 size": in what units? "Disagreements arose": when? "Business people from Chicago": who? "Placed in a location": really? How would you place a factory so that it was not in a location? "two businessmen": who?
Peacock and largely content-free: "specialized one-of-a-kind" "specifically to the correct dimensions". "Tiny parts of the watch mechanisms": are any parts of watch mechanisms not tiny? Anti-peacock: "low quality".
Overly detailed: Why do we need to know the names of the factory directors? The layout of the factory? The existence of a nearby lake? The fact that the only wood in the factory was in its window frames? The invention date and inventor of the specific brand of concrete used to build it? Relatedly, the "Notes" section is mostly a quote farm of long off-topic quotes that, if they were not so old, would be a copyvio.
Original research and sourcing issues: We are not told what the alloy is, in the article or the quote from its source, so how do we know that it "did not involve a ferrous material"? And what is the point of the circumlocution "ferrous material" for iron? The Ford Collections reference is a deadlink, and when tracked down turns out to source only the second sentence of the legacy section; the first sentence is unsourced. The claim that a later occupant made kilns is contradicted by its source, which says that they were looking to purchase kilns. The claim that A. D. Joslin made machine tools is not supported by its source, and it is certainly not true that the building became the company as the current text states. Much of the sourcing is to primary legal documents rather than secondary sourcing, dubious by WP:RSPRIMARY. The claim that "The sales of the watches had slowed and there were insufficient funds for Rath to make his required payments to Bachner" is sourced to one of these legal documents, which appears to be entirely about a different agreement between Rath and Bachner with the city and says nothing about sales rates or payments from Rath to Bachner.
The gallery of tiny uncaptioned pictures of watches conveys no useful information to the viewer and fails WP:NOTGALLERY. And two of the images when expanded turn out to be badly blurred.
Overall I think this is very far from WP:GACR #1 (prose quality and organization) and #3b (avoidance of unnecessary detail), and has significant problems with #2 (sourcing) and #6 (image captioning and relevance). It does appear to be neutral and stable, but that's not enough to save it. I think it is a quick fail. I would rate it as C-class at best. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Vice regent ( talk · contribs) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I have started reading this article. VR talk 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Doug Coldwell some early thoughts as I read the article.
VR talk 04:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Now for the review.
The article is well written. No spelling or grammatical issues, sentences are not too long and I can follow the prose easily. It follows MOS guidelines, no WTA that I can see. Lead follows MOS and the issues I identified with the lead above were fixed by Doug Coldwell - thanks for that.
Every sentence in the article body has a citation. The sources are appropriate for this article, and I don't see any reliability issues. Citation style is appropriate. No original research, no excessive quotations. No BLP issues.
All major aspects seem to be addressed. This is not a broad topic to begin with and I suspect reliable sources don't have much to say about this watch company. So while the article is small, I don't see any problems with that. There are no issues relating to unnecessary detail.
No NPOV issues. Again, this topic isn't one that I'd suspect of being prone to NPOV issues. The article is written objectively. Nothing controversial in the content that would make me suspect issues with WP:DUE.
Yes. I don't see any recent disputes in the article history or talk page.
All images are relevant and have captions. I don't see any copyright issues with any of them.
I saw this article was reviewed before ( version reviewed). I think the article has come a long way since, especially with respect to organization. So I'm going ahead and passing the GA nom. VR talk 07:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Manistee Watch Company was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This orphaned
talk page,
subpage,
image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under
CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia. If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. |
![]() | This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I need help. I just changed Louis Kahn to Julius Kahn in a sentence that says who invented the concrete reinforcing system used in the Manistee factory. I'd like to make a footnote to back that up, but I can't figure out how. The footnote would contain the following information: The source is Structure (that's the name of a publication), April 2013. The article was written by Ryan Salmon, EIT and Meghan Elliott, P.E., Associate AIA. The URL is http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=1636 . The text I'd like to quote is "The "Kahn System" was invented by Julius Kahn, who filed a patent for it on December 11, 1902."
Of course, this doesn't PROVE that this same Kahn system was used in the Manistee factory, but unless a different person named Kahn violated the patent and offered a different concrete system under the same name (which seems unlikely), it had to be Julius Kahn's system.
It definitely wasn't Louis Kahn, who appears to be no relation. He was 7 years old in 1908 and had just immigrated from Russia with his family.
If anyone can help me fix this, I'd appreciate it. I don't want to leave this change unsupported by reference. Gms3591 ( talk) 09:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This orphaned
talk page,
subpage,
image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under
CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia. If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: David Eppstein ( talk · contribs) 02:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Extremely disorganized: basically a big lump of text in a "history" section, with almost nothing else, and within that section a collection of isolated sentences in a seemingly-random order with paragraph breaks added at seemingly-random points between some of the sentences. Information is in the wrong order: for instance we learn that the watches were shipped "about 30 miles away" before learning where they were shipped from. Although the "Legacy" section is short, only the first two of its seven sentences make sense for that section.
Self-contradictory: a sentence early in the history says that "some" of the movements were jeweled, while a different sentence later classifies the movements by numbers of jewels implying that all were jeweled. A sentence early in the history says that the watches were cased by "other companies", while a sentence in another paragraph says they were cased by one specific company. The lead says "a range of prices" while later we learn "five dollars each".
Vague: "other companies", "other inexpensive watches on the market". "16 and 18 size": in what units? "Disagreements arose": when? "Business people from Chicago": who? "Placed in a location": really? How would you place a factory so that it was not in a location? "two businessmen": who?
Peacock and largely content-free: "specialized one-of-a-kind" "specifically to the correct dimensions". "Tiny parts of the watch mechanisms": are any parts of watch mechanisms not tiny? Anti-peacock: "low quality".
Overly detailed: Why do we need to know the names of the factory directors? The layout of the factory? The existence of a nearby lake? The fact that the only wood in the factory was in its window frames? The invention date and inventor of the specific brand of concrete used to build it? Relatedly, the "Notes" section is mostly a quote farm of long off-topic quotes that, if they were not so old, would be a copyvio.
Original research and sourcing issues: We are not told what the alloy is, in the article or the quote from its source, so how do we know that it "did not involve a ferrous material"? And what is the point of the circumlocution "ferrous material" for iron? The Ford Collections reference is a deadlink, and when tracked down turns out to source only the second sentence of the legacy section; the first sentence is unsourced. The claim that a later occupant made kilns is contradicted by its source, which says that they were looking to purchase kilns. The claim that A. D. Joslin made machine tools is not supported by its source, and it is certainly not true that the building became the company as the current text states. Much of the sourcing is to primary legal documents rather than secondary sourcing, dubious by WP:RSPRIMARY. The claim that "The sales of the watches had slowed and there were insufficient funds for Rath to make his required payments to Bachner" is sourced to one of these legal documents, which appears to be entirely about a different agreement between Rath and Bachner with the city and says nothing about sales rates or payments from Rath to Bachner.
The gallery of tiny uncaptioned pictures of watches conveys no useful information to the viewer and fails WP:NOTGALLERY. And two of the images when expanded turn out to be badly blurred.
Overall I think this is very far from WP:GACR #1 (prose quality and organization) and #3b (avoidance of unnecessary detail), and has significant problems with #2 (sourcing) and #6 (image captioning and relevance). It does appear to be neutral and stable, but that's not enough to save it. I think it is a quick fail. I would rate it as C-class at best. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Vice regent ( talk · contribs) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I have started reading this article. VR talk 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Doug Coldwell some early thoughts as I read the article.
VR talk 04:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Now for the review.
The article is well written. No spelling or grammatical issues, sentences are not too long and I can follow the prose easily. It follows MOS guidelines, no WTA that I can see. Lead follows MOS and the issues I identified with the lead above were fixed by Doug Coldwell - thanks for that.
Every sentence in the article body has a citation. The sources are appropriate for this article, and I don't see any reliability issues. Citation style is appropriate. No original research, no excessive quotations. No BLP issues.
All major aspects seem to be addressed. This is not a broad topic to begin with and I suspect reliable sources don't have much to say about this watch company. So while the article is small, I don't see any problems with that. There are no issues relating to unnecessary detail.
No NPOV issues. Again, this topic isn't one that I'd suspect of being prone to NPOV issues. The article is written objectively. Nothing controversial in the content that would make me suspect issues with WP:DUE.
Yes. I don't see any recent disputes in the article history or talk page.
All images are relevant and have captions. I don't see any copyright issues with any of them.
I saw this article was reviewed before ( version reviewed). I think the article has come a long way since, especially with respect to organization. So I'm going ahead and passing the GA nom. VR talk 07:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)