Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Michigan Limestone and Chemical Company/1

Michigan Limestone and Chemical Company

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Page has been improved and information on missing period added. Kept as GA. Gusfriend (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is the "world's largest limestone quarry" is sourced to a 1917 report by Allen, Rolland Craten called Mineral Resources of Michigan with Statistical Tables and should be supported by a more recent reference. The few searches I did claimed it without supporting information so I think that it really needs something from a department of minerals, scholarly publication, etc.

Fixed 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention in the article of the size of the actual quarry apart from the original parcel of land.

Fixed 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent information about how much is produced is 1920 when it produced 1,000 tons a day.

Fixed 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing about the history of the mine or company since 1951. The page says that ownership has changed several times in recent years but the information is sourced to the state marker which doesn't say anything about it.

Fixed 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Who owns the company now?

Fixed 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. What changes have happened in the last 70 years?

Fixed 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Has the method of transport of the mined material changed?

Fixed 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The uses section reads could easily be reduced to a couple of sentences with a hatnote.

I disagree. Not really. I expanded it. WP:Not paper 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might make sense to have a section about the quarry itself separate to the company.

Fixed 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the ships may be worth splitting off to a stand alone page (50-50 on this one).

I disagree. The ships have always been part of the whole operation, and integrated into it. WP:Not paper 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably more concerns with it.

Can't address mere probbility without more specifics. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This is another Coldwell article.~~Gusfriend (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was and still is a good artiole. Tearing up the tracks in your personal vendetta ["This is another Coldwell article" — Argumentum ad hominem fallacy] is no way to build a railroad. There is nothing wrong with this article. It is at the very least history that belongs in Wikipedia.

I've added ~~three~~ many more new and current sources documenting current owner and operations.

The rest of your concerns have been addressed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article was and is a good article and it is history that belongs in Wikipedia. It is, additionally, an interesting article to read. My only concern is whether it reaches the level of being classified as a Good Article. In particular, at the time of my review, I was concerned about the lack of recent information in the article.

I had left the note about authorship so that other possible reviewers would be aware of possible systemic issues but as that is not how it has been read I have struck it out. Gusfriend (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gusfriend As a final word, this is not the article you found when you proposed delisting it from WP:GA. Your proposal had the beneficial consequence of getting it improved. We made it better. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your work on improving the article and it is indeed a lot better. Given the current state, which as you said is not the same as when I proposed it for delisting, I would have no concerns with the article remaining a GA. Gusfriend (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]