Talk:Hartford City Glass Company

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 09:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd be glad to take this review--thanks in advance for your work, and sorry you've had to wait so long. I'll post initial comments in the next 1-4 days. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article. Based on your experience, it looks like I should be able to learn a few things from you. I work full time, so I may not be able to respond to comments immediately—but i will repond. TwoScars (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem--looking forward to it, Khazar2 (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

On first pass, this looks quite good. The article is well-sourced and the prose is excellent. There's a few moments where bits of synthesis could be considered original research. For example, the half-sentence "giving the Hartford City plant more than double the capacity of some of the window glass plants built a few years earlier in Ohio" -- doesn't appear to be a comparison that either source makes (correct me if I'm wrong here, though). As such, it probably doesn't really belong in the article; we generally have to limit ourselves to information in sources directly about the topic. At the same time, none of this is particularly serious or controversial material, so I think this could still be considered to be in GA range. Thanks again for all your work here.

Thanks again for reviewing the article. (As info, I will have another glass factory, from Wheeling WV, ready this winter.) I have no problem chopping off the last half of the sentence before Note 3, and eliminating Note 3. If I remember correctly, the peer reviewer thought some perspective was necessary for the size of the plant. XX number of pots means nothing to someone not familiar with the glass industry. Paquette's book is an easy resource for a comparison to Ohio glass plants, since I have already used it in this and other articles. The earlier sentence says it was the largest in the world at the time—if that is enough, OK. Your call. I will also fix (tonight?) the copyright tag for the 1887 map. It is a piece of a map from the Library of Congress. Plan to read through through the article during lunch, only to make sure any tweaks did not change the meaning of a sentence. TwoScars (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Article reads fine with tweaks. Changed map to PD-1923, and Iowa in categories to Indiana. Your call on Note 3. Anything else? TwoScars (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, since I see very little to pick on here--besides some tweaks I made to the prose, feel free to revert any you disagree with--let me go ahead and proceed to the final checklist. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.	The heavy reliance on primary and contemporary sources, combined with some of the comparisons made with sources not directly about Hartford, push the envelope on original research a bit, but none of this material seems terribly controversial; I think it just makes it on this criterion.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	File:Map_Blackford_County_1887_Railway_Mail_Service.JPG needs a US-specific copyright tag
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

Thanks