Talk:Inland Steel Company/GA1

GA Review

Passed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: BoatnerdJenn (talk · contribs) 19:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 13:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article using the template below. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BoatnerdJenn, can you confirm you're around and have availability to respond to comments / make changes? Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am around and so is Recon Rabbit, who has also offered to help. Thank you! BoatnerdJenn (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, commencing review! Feel free to respond to comments as I make them, no need to wait until I've covered everything. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing my part as well... If I get anything wrong feel free to shout out @BoatnerdJenn. Currently responding to external link concerns. Recon rabbit 19:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have found some more information that I can add to this article as you suggested. Before proceeding with this, I would like to make sure that some of the sources are passable.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/economics-business-and-labor/businesses-and-occupations/inland-steel-industries-inc

http://usw1010.org/

https://indianahistory.org/wp-content/uploads/inland-steel-company-indiana-harbor-works-photographs.pdf from the Indiana Historical Society

I have two more sources that will be no problem and a third at the mercy of the U.S. Postal system, but the above have some detail that I am unable to access elsewhere. BoatnerdJenn (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is good but it would probably be better to cite it to the original source, the International Directory of Company Histories, if you can track down the ISBN and page numbers. The other two look fine, with the note that the USW1010 source is of course non-independent and should be treated with caution to avoid bias. Thanks for checking! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BoatnerdJenn, @Reconrabbit, when do you think these changes will be complete? It'd be good to get this review wrapped up in the next few days. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to or know where to find the resources needed to further address the broadness/narrowness criteria, so the remaining requested changes I can't do much about... I have to leave that to the other nominator. Recon rabbit 03:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had to go out of town for a couple days unexpectedly. The research part is done, though I am hoping that the article I ordered arrives soon. Everything should be done Thursday night. Another thing-- I was thinking that it might be better to change Local 1010 to Union Strikes and remove a few lines that would no longer fit. What are your thoughts on that? BoatnerdJenn (talk) 12:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds good on timeline. What would be the benefit of doing that? Were there any other unions involved with Inland Steel? If Local 1010 was the only one, I don't see the need for a change. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was the only union. I was only concerned that the last noteworthy action was in the 1950s so there is not much to add, but keeping it as is would keep William Young in there, which is a good thing. If you are OK with it as is now I will stop worrying about it. BoatnerdJenn (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I almost have it finished and will just need a couple of hours in the morning. BoatnerdJenn (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BoatnerdJenn I'm presuming you're now finished? I'll take another look. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just found something about the acquisition that I am adding right now. BoatnerdJenn (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be ready now BoatnerdJenn (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see if I can fill out missing summary information in the lead. Though I am a bit busy tonight. Recon rabbit 22:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to BoatnerdJenn, Reconrabbit, and all others who worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	fully integrated in 1944 does this refer to business integration or racial integration? Vertically integrated, it's stated as such later on since it became "no longer vertically integrated" (linked now and also in the lead). I/N Tek and I/N Kote are these subsidiary companies? Types of steel? Steel plants? Clarify. They were joint venture partnerships. I have added some more information in both the history and facilities sections.--BoatnerdJenn (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] As is my usual practice, I've gone through and made smaller prose tweaks myself to save us both time. If there are any you object to, just let me know. I appreciate that!--BoatnerdJenn (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] On the whole the prose is good. Beyond the two questions above, only one more thing - the lead could stand to be a little longer. I would add 3-4 more sentences summarizing the most important aspects of the company's history including the union. Feel free to re-organize what's already there. We're close! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I think what I've done in the lead addresses the main points. Though it could feasibly be written better? It's 2 AM here, not sure. Recon rabbit 06:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I made some alterations and can work on it more tomorrow if it helps--BoatnerdJenn (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Issues addressed, pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The first external link would be better-off incorporated into the article as an image. Should be fine for copyright I believe given the date. I have removed the external link and captioned in a style consistent with other photos — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoatnerdJenn (talk • contribs) 13:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Who is Michael Tenenbaum? Odd that he's not referenced in the article but his papers are given as an External Link. He was president of the company from 1971-1978. Not mentioned in the sources used for that period of time but apparently an influential figure. Some context was added under Firm history. Third external link (Arcelor Mittal) is dead There appears to be an archived copy but it relies on stylesheets that don't exist so it's not that useful. Maybe delete? Yes, I'd say it should be deleted. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Fourth external link is good (even great!) but should be given a few more words of description in the link. Some context was added. Issues resolved, assuming ArcelorMittal link will be addressed. Pass.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	At least two of the primary sources are non-independent of the corporation. Please ensure you check they are being used for facts only and not analysis or conjecture. I will also double-check this as I do the source and prose review. I wish I could have found all of that information in other sources. When other sources did have the same information, they were in agreement with the non-independent sources. If you find anything problematic, I will try to find it in another source or remove it. Is Boatnerd a reliable source? And does either of the nominators have any kind of connection to the website or is that just coincidence? I don't have any connection to Boatnerd personally. There's an article here on Wikipedia about the organization that appears to establish reliability but the references are quite old and many are dead links or subscription only. Recon rabbit It is considered a very reliable source in the Great Lakes Marititime History community. No actual connection to the organization. My username just signifies my area of interest, as in it is specific to the maritime history of the Great Lakes I don't think we can safely regard it as reliable - the cite should be removed and the info removed (or a new cite added if possible Ganesha811 (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Done--What I could not find elsewhere was removed For Northwest Indiana Steel Heritage Project, the original link 404s and should be marked as dead or updated. Also, what exactly is the organization? It seems to be sponsored by ArcelorMittal and the steelworkers union and therefore could hardly be regarded as independent. It looks like the link is marked as dead with the archive-url parameter now. The organization is stated as an independent non-profit, though much of their information is likely derived from ArcelorMittal and the union; it's at a minimum a secondary source if not an independent one. Recon rabbit It appears to be a historical organization that established a museum that receives federal funding. It also has ties to Indiana University Northwest Seems fine. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] The Iron Age and the Chronicle seem fine as reliable business and trade journals, as do a couple others. #42, the Tribune source, should be decapitalized. Done. Recon rabbit #82 (Sue Leaf) could use a page #. Done Great Lakes Vessel History looks like an enthusiast's blog. Is it reliable? If the home page is to be believed, the website was written by the late Great Lakes vessel historian Sterling Berry and is maintained by a historian who publishes annual works on ships on the Great Lakes. Recon rabbit It is now maintained by the same person who is in charge of the Boatnerd website and Know Your Ships, Roger LaLievre, which is why I deemed it a reliable source I don't regard this as a reliable source, unfortunately. It is the work of dedicated amateurs and enthusiasts, which is very respectable, but not enough to meet the GA standard on Wikipedia. Same as above - please remove and replace (or remove the cited info). —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Done Since #95 (American Steamship Co) is only used once, it can just be cited directly rather than being listed in the bibliography. Done. All issues above addressed - new sources listed by nominator at top also look fine - will recheck if there are any new issues. Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None found - pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	This phrase is borrowed/copyvio in External Links and should be modified: series of his writings and speeches and a small number of Inland Steel Company publication It's been done away with. Recon rabbit Earwig finds nothing else, hold for manual spot check. Spot checked during prose review, a couple tweaks to avoid close paraphrasing, no major issues. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Coverage of the '70s, 80s, and 90s seems sparse and the current text raises more questions than it answers. Why did Inland Steel stop being profitable in the '80s and 90s? What were the "internal reforms" that led to sudden immense profitability? If they were profitable in the '90s, what factors led to them being acquired rather than remaining independent? A misleading sentence was removed and more detailed information has been provided, The Facilities section is perhaps a bit overdetailed, especially given that it appears to only cover the first half of the 20th century. There's only one sentence for anything after 1950. More information was found and provided. Another editor put in subheadings, making it more reader-friendly Similarly the Local 1010 section (otherwise very interesting) doesn't mention much after the 1950s. The 70s, 80s and 90s were interesting times for American labor - anything from Local 1010? What was the impact of acquisition in the 1990s? I agree with this all of this. I will look for more information about the specific things you mentioned and after the 1950's in general. It will probably take me a few days, so hopefully by Tuesday I will have this issue addressed. Sounds good! —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] I could not find anything notable after the 1950's, no strikes or anything that would be of interest to the reader. It can be removed if it does not fit. Issue addressed, pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	As mentioned, the Facilities section has some extraneous detail that can be trimmed out. It's at 769 words at the moment but could be brought to around 500 or fewer. Expanded material covering later time periods might result in it expanding again which wouldn't be a problem. There was some odd information in there that I tried to awkwardly work around and fix. I hate to remove anyone's previous work, but some of it does not really fit in and probably just needs removed. I will research more to see if I can find anything more about facilities after the 1950's/ Issue addressed, pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The facilities section has been expanded and Big Turtle has broken it up with subheadings. No major neutrality issues found - check for minor issues re: sourcing in prose review. No passages of promotionalism. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues, pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	It's unclear to me whether the Indiana Harbor shot actually shows Inland Steel's Mill, or if those facilities have been closed or reworked significantly since the company shut down. Could you clarify? File:Indiana Harbor Peninsula 2.jpg also seems like a good option if the former is the case. I tried to find that picture but could not, the contributor is inactive. After hours of looking for free-use photos, I had to admit defeat and use your suggestion. Thank you! Issues addressed (images moved), minor caption tweaks can be handled in prose, pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.