Jump to content

Talk:Inland Steel Company/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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. Reconrabbit 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. Reconrabbit 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]
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.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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. Reconrabbit
  • 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

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. Reconrabbit
  • It appears to be a historical organization that established a museum that receives federal funding. It also has ties to Indiana University Northwest
  • 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. Reconrabbit
  • #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. Reconrabbit

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. Reconrabbit
  • Earwig finds nothing else, hold for manual spot check.
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?
  • 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.
  • 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.
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/
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.
  • 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inland_Steel_Company/GA1&oldid=1256983658"