Talk:Kate Gleason/Archives/2014

Suggestions for Improvement

This article is off to a great start but also has many areas for improvement. My first thought was that this article is rather short compared to many other Wikipedia articles on engineers. One part that could be expanded on is her work in the engineering field. There is a good portion on Gleason’s schooling and early life but there is really no information on her contributions to the field of engineering. What were her accomplishments that led to her recognition? The first sentence in the article suggests she was revolutionary but nowhere else in the article is evidence to support that claim. Was it the fact that she was a woman engineer in a time of male superiority, or the way she advocated for herself, or for her accomplishments alone in the engineering field, or something else? There is also mention of her philanthropy but was not backed up by any examples or evidence. I think it would be really helpful to have some examples of backlash or oppositions that some people may have had towards her, or if there was none of this, then examples of all the support she got from her fellow engineers. I also think that the “Personal Life” section is very brief, considering it is only one sentence. I am curious about her interests and hobbies outside of her work, and others may also wonder about this. I also see that she believed a husband and family would hinder her professional life, but it would be nice to know why she believed this and/or how she exemplified this. How is this fact known? Did she make this known to all in whom she came into contact with? Or does she have anything written on her lifestyle choices? I would also suggest that the sentence on Gleason being friends with Susan B. Anthony could be moved to the personal life section. I also think that more photos, especially those of her working in her field, would be very beneficial to this article. Overall, it is a very informative article but could be so much stronger if there was more content or explanations for why there may be a lack there of. Meeshell645 (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I changed "revolutionary" in the opening sentence for the reason you pointed out. She was remarkable for being an accomplished woman in a field almost exclusively male in that era (late 19th and early 20th centuries). Unfortunately I don't have any details to add to the article beyond Fred Colvin's praise already quoted and referenced. Regarding the specifics of her work, my impression is that she was what we today would call a sales engineer or applications engineer—which can be described as "an engineer who knows how to sell" or "a salesperson with engineering knowledge". They didn't call them by those terms back then, but it's the same concept. She wasn't the one who designed the machine tools, but she understood them thoroughly and thus could sell them effectively. A bit more than merely selling—she could advise how to organize businesses to apply mass production ideas. Looking at the books returned by this search, I see she worked on applying mass production to housing construction. Would be interesting to read more when time allows. — ¾-10 22:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)