Talk:Haskell Manufacturing Company

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Haskell Manufacturing Company/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 22:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Criteria

1. Prose ✓ Pass

2. Verifiability ✓ Pass

3. Depth of Coverage ✓ Pass

4. Neutral ✓ Pass

5. Stable ✓ Pass

6. Illustrations ✓ Pass

7. Miscellaneous ✓ Pass

Comments

1.

• "The Haskell Manufacturing Company was a manufacturer company" - Not sure manufacturer company is the correct phrasing, usually it's just manufacturer or manufacturing company

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Link plywood in the lead

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Half of the sentences in the lead start with "the plywood", can this be varied some?

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• " was constructed with Haskelite, and was the Curtiss two-place fighter Whistling Bill." - Maybe "as was" instead of "and was"?

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• "decade and owned by Antoine" -- "decade and was owned by Antoine"

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• "to make the carroms game" - Link the game

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure if they is the right word for a company, since it's a singular legal entity. They is used in this context throughout

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

2.

• Revenue in the infobox isn't cited

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Number of employees in the infobox isn't cited

 Done - Couldn't find reference for info, so took out of infobox.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

3.

• Could use some more information. Revenue figures, if available would be nice, as would an indication of how many employees would be helpful (I know it's in the infobox, but it should be added to the prose)

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• The demise of the company is entirely omitted. It's a former company, but when did it close, and why?

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 6 needs the author

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 15 needs the author and date, and I'm not sure that Advanced Local Media is the right publisher

 Done - corrected accordingly. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

4.

5.

6.

• Cite the caption for the patent, instead of linking the citation

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

7.

• The lead doesn't give a great summary of the article, the founding and demise of the company, as well of much of its history, is absent.

 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Placing on hold. Hog Farm (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Done All issues have been addressed. Can you take a look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Coldwell: - Only a couple more things. A few of the refs (I believe 11, 12, 15, 16, and 17) need parameters for via newspapers.com and one of the book titles is is all caps, generally it's preferable to use title case. I also made a couple minor copy edits, please check over those and revert any you disagree with. Hog Farm (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Done - Your minor edits are good. Can you take another look. The other issues are Done. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks good now. Promoting. Hog Farm (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

GA review at Haskelite

A GAR has been started for Haskelite at Talk:Haskelite which may impact and raise some issues relating to both this page and the Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation. Gusfriend (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Split off of information on the Haskell Manufacturing Company Building

The article was a mix of information about the company and the building. I have WP:BOLDly split off the information about the Haskell Manufacturing Company Building as it is on the NRHP. Gusfriend (talk) 08:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation into Haskell Manufacturing Company

I propose merging Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation into Haskell Manufacturing Company. The two companies are intricately related with linked origins and it is hard to talk about one without the context of the other. For example The Haskell Manufacturing Company page currently includes several paragraphs about the Grand Rapids factory which is part of the Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation. Gusfriend (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

This was initially discussed at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Haskelite/1 as part of the GAR for Haskelite. Gusfriend (talk) 07:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• OPPOSE - The Haskell Manufacturing Company is a company formed because of the success of the products made with Haskelite plywood. Carrom Company was the first to make Haskelite plywood. The Haskell Manufacturing Company is basically a derivative off the Carrom Company, so has a history of its own belonging to Ludington, Michigan. The Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation has all its history at Grand Rapids, Michigan. Its main purpose from the start was to supply plywood to the United States and its allies for the construction of military vehicles and aircraft. This factory was twice as large as the Ludington factory and employed about ten times as many men. The Ludington factory produced some ten thousand square feet of plywood per day. The Grand Rapids factory produced one hundred thousand square feet of plywood per day. I believe because of each unique history and purpose that they should stay as separate Wikipedia articles. The manufacturing plant in Ludington was part of the larger Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation that was headquartered in Chicago. So putting Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation under Haskell Manufacturing Company would be wrong, as it was the other way around in real history. The Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation has unusual unique history of its own, as it was associated with the Spirit of St. Louis and the British fighter bomber De Havilland Mosquito plane.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  I should say that proposing the merge does not mean that they do not each have notability in their own right but that I think that it would work better as a single page due to the crossover in information on the two pages and being able to present a single combined perspective instead of a somewhat arbitrary split.

  The statement that The manufacturing plant in Ludington was part of the larger Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation that was headquartered in Chicago. So putting Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation under Haskell Manufacturing Company would be wrong, as it was the other way around in real history. when the the Haskell Manufacturing Company article states that The company in 1918 opened its second plant in Grand Rapids, Michigan. This factory was called the Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation. but then again it says that the manufacturing plant in Ludington was part of the larger Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation but later on it also says Due to competition the spin-off plant of Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation in Grand Rapids was sold to an industrial buyer in 1949.

  In other words, in this article we have the three following statements:

  • The Corporation opened a second plant called the Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation.
  • The plant in Ludington was part of the larger Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation.
  • The Grand Rapids plant of the Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation was a spin off from the Company.

  The Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation on the other hand makes no mention of the Company apart from saying Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation was formed in late 1917 as a spin-off from the Haskell Manufacturing Company of Ludington.

  At this point the lack of clarity / consistency in the pages is leading me to thing that a WP:GAR may be needed as a mechanism for a deeper dive. One of the reasons that I have not started one is the hope that the act of merging the two pages into a single combined page would resolve any issues and leave one GA rather than none. Gusfriend (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

• The two articles have not changed since they were promoted to Good Article. They both met the criteria for a Good Article at the time. Since they are still the same articles with basically no changes they will still meet the criteria for a Good Article and should stay as two individual articles. I think the idea for a reason for a reassessment is a process used to determine whether a good article (GA) still meets the good article criteria after extensive changes over a long period of time (e.g. years). Since basically nothing has changed on these two articles they both still meet the criteria for a Good Article.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

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)