This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of glass on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GlassWikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/GlassTemplate:WikiProject Glassglass articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Hartford City Glass Company received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).
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.
