Wikipedia

Talk:J. H. Hobbs, Brockunier and Company

Latest comment: 1 month ago by ZombiUwU
Passed. ZombiUwU ♥ (🌸~♥~ 📝) 19:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago32 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:J. H. Hobbs, Brockunier and Company/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ZombiUwU (talk · contribs) 18:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply


Good day, TwoScars. I will be picking up and conducting the review for this article. I feel it is necessary to inform you that this is my first time conducting such a review, though I doubt that will be an issue. I look forward to reading this article. I will ping you once my review has been completed. Thanks! ZombiUwU ♥ (🌸~♥~ 📝) 18:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • @ZombiUwU: Thanks for looking at this. TwoScars (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @TwoScars I am about a fourth of the way through the review and so far all of the citation spot-checks are good with the exception of one usage of citation 20 (Please see Background). This article is pretty good with some really minor issues. I made my current notes available so you can start to make changes if you want. Thanks! ZombiUwU ♥ (🌸~♥~ 📝) 23:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @TwoScars Tomorrow I am going to let you review my comments on you edit and make any edits you see fit then I will reread the article and if it looks good pass it. Have a good night or day (what ever time of day it is for you). ZombiUwU ♥ (🌸~♥~ 📝) 05:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @TwoScars It all looks good to me. Congrats on another good article! It was a pleasure working with you. ZombiUwU ♥ (🌸~♥~ 📝) 19:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply


Questions and Comments edit

  • I noticed that the introduction used both "glassmakers" and "glass makers." Before addressing this in the lead section, I'd like to confirm whether the distinction is intentional, with "glass makers" referring to companies and "glassmakers" referring to individuals. If this is the case, it might be beneficial for clarity (not a pun) to replace "glass makers" with "glass manufacturers" to provide a more particular denotation for first-time readers.
    • You are correct, but I changed "glass makers" to "glass manufacturers". In the case of "glassmakers" in the first paragraph of the Glass formula section, it probably could be "glassmakers" or "glass manufacturers", but I left it as "glassmakers" since many individuals (such as Owens) became known for their improvements to the processes. TwoScars (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  •  Resolved Sounds good.
  • In my opinion the sentence "The firm was reorganized multiple times during the next half century, but members of the Hobbs family were always part of the ownership" is a little unclear. It's not explicitly stated where the "next half century" starts so I assume it means the 50 years following 1845, if this is the case I believe it should be phrased as "The firm was reorganized multiple times during the 50 years following 1845, but members of the Hobbs family were always part of the ownership". This isn't a big issue but I wanted to make a note of it anyway.
  •  Resolved Sounds good.
  • Good lord they change the name of the company a lot of times.
    • Since management consisted of glassmakers instead of MBAs, they probably did not place enough value in brand name recognition. TwoScars (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • When referring to a single place or location it should be "glassworks" and not "glass works".
    • Changed all "glass works" to "glassworks" with the following exceptions: a) when a name has a capitalized "Glass Works" in it; and b) a case where a "flint glass works" is mentioned. Flint glass is a "thing", so it seems awkward to combine glass and works. I don't feel strongly about the flint glass works, so if you feel it should be changed too, no problem here. TwoScars (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  •  Resolved Sounds good. I will default to you on this.

Lead edit

  • I observed a few minor issues related to hyphenation and word separation in the text. For instance, the term "world wide" should be written as "worldwide" reflecting the appropriate noun form. The same goes for "best known" being corrected to "best-known" as it is being used before a noun per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Hyphens. (I fixed these)
  • "The most famous iteration of the company was named..." - I would change this to something more along the lines of "During its peak notoriety, the company was named..."
  •  Resolved Sounds good.
  • I would consider adding Harry Northwood to the infobox under key people. I decided that Harry Northwood was a not key person but Michael Owens on the other hand has an entire paragraph about him and definitely appears to be key. Additionally, he has a Wikipedia article about him so it would be great to include him under key people as readers might use the infobox as a starting point for additional research. This is a soft suggestion as he isn't necessarily key to the existence of J. H. Hobbs, Brockunier and Company.
  •  Resolved Sounds good, they aren't necessarily key people.
  • " It remained closed until 1902 when the property was sold to Harry Northwood—a former employee of J. H. Hobbs, Bruckunier and Company." - This statement uses "Bruckunier" when most other statements use Brockunier.
    • Fixed. Misspelled (possibly an autocorrect problem) by me. TwoScars (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  •  Resolved Sounds good. Prob should have just fixed this my self lol.
  • See questions and comments.

Background edit

I forgot to save and had to redo this section ;-;

  • "Lead ore, known as red lead, was a key additive for high–quality glassware, and England controlled the supply." the "and England controlled the supply" sounds a little weird to me when I read it out loud. I would suggest changing it to "with England holding the majority of the supply".
    • Going with a modified version of your suggestion. Note that the source says "England controlled the world's only source of quality lead ore for glassmaking. It was known as red lead...." Here is what it was changed to: Lead ore, known as red lead, was a key additive for high–quality glassware, with England holding the world's known supply. (I like this wording because it agrees with the source while it also foreshadows the discovery of other sources of red lead. I still can be persuaded to change it if it still seems awkward.) TwoScars (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  •  Resolved Sounds good. I agree with your thought about how it foreshadows the discovery of other sources.
  • "Glass is made by starting with a batch of ingredients, melting it, forming the glass product, and gradually cooling it.[Note 3] Because most glass plants melted their ingredients in a pot, the plant's number of pots was often used to describe a plant's capacity.[Note 4]" - This should be moved to a note and then referenced in sections where it is concerned. As it currently stands, the first mention of pots (excluding the quote) does not appear until the third paragraph of the Early Years subsection, where this information would be more appropriately placed.
    • Moved what was Note 4, and the sentence before it, to the third paragraph of the Early years subsection. Did you also mean the first sentence and what was Note 3? I moved that to the beginning of the Glassmaking in the United States section. The major section is Background, and I believe someone might need to know the basics of glassmaking to better understand the remaining portions of the article—hence, Background. What do you think? TwoScars (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • I was talking about moving the mention that plant's number of pots was often used to describe a plant's capacity to a note so that It could be more directly connected to the usage of pots later in the article, Note 3 and its preceding sentence are fine. I looked at the edits and it seems to be fine now, I do agree that it might make sense to have in the background section but I am not sure about having it there and in a note.  Resolved
  • "Glassmaking requires high quantities of fuel to melt the raw materials used to make glass." - While the production of glass demands significant fuel to melt the raw materials, citation 20 primarily discusses the supply and type of fuel without explicitly addressing the quantities involved.
    • I will add a footnote to the sentence about high quantities of fuel, and possibly reword it. The source will be "The glass industry. Report on the cost of production of glass in the United States", which is a 1917 report by the United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. The bottom of page 12 and top of page 13 discusses the importance of fuel, which is the second largest expense after labor. I'll wait before I add this because it will add one to the citation number for each of the other citations you mentioned. TwoScars (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Replaced the "Glassmaking requires high quantities...." sentence with "Other than labor, fuel for the melting and annealing furnaces was the biggest expense in glassmaking." It has a citation from the Depart of Commerce source above. TwoScars (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  •  Resolved Sounds good.
  • "Jarves also smuggled European glassmaking talent to America" - The source for citation 6 puts "smuggled" in quotation marks I suggest you do the same.
  •  Resolved Sounds good.
  • "...another default. The plant was closed." - I would change this to be one sentence like "another default which caused the plant to be closed".
  •  Resolved Sounds good.

Startup edit

  • "In late December 1852, the B&O completed its line to Wheeling and the Ohio River..." I would suggest using "B&O Railroad" throughout the rest of the article just for clarity.
    • Remember that in the Wheeling section we already have "the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (a.k.a. B&O) had". However, added "Railroad" to B&O elsewhere. TwoScars (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  •  Resolved Sounds good, but if you feel it fits better to get rid of the "Railroad" please do so.
  • "and had a wholesale distribution house was named J.K. Dunham and Company." - I assume you just forgot to add a "which" before "was named" but I will leave what to do with this one up to you.
  •  Resolved Sounds good. I probably should have done this myself.

Overall this section is pretty good though sometimes the language is a little bit like a list of disconected events.

Golden era edit

  • "The next twenty-five years were a golden era for the South Wheeling glassworks." - I would add to the beginning of the sentence "Under the management J. H. Hobbs, Brockunier and Company the next twenty-five years..."
  •  Resolved Sounds good.
  • "By 1873, the glass works was the oldest in America west of the Allegany Mountains." I read the source for Citation 67 and I am not sure how the paper extracted that this was the oldest glassworks in America west of the Allegany Mountains. It might have been the oldest operating west of the Allegany Mountains at the time but I have other sources that claim the outright oldest west of the Allegany Mountains was the New Geneva Glass Works which was founded in the late 1700s
    • Agree that it should have "operating" in the sentence. The New Geneva Glass Works closed in the 1840s, but I believe Bakewell Glass was still operating. I would like to say it was one of the oldest operating west of.... However, I need to find a better source, since the newspaper article is wrong. Will work on this tomorrow. TwoScars (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • Dropped all of the oldest stuff, since the size of the company is mentioned later in this paragraph and at the end of the next paragraph. The paragraph now begins: By 1873 the South Wheeling Glass Works belonging to J. H. Hobbs, Brockunier and Company occupied 400 feet (121.9 m) square, and had three furnaces with a combined capacity of 29 pots. TwoScars (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  •  Resolved Sounds good.
  • While it states that products were sold on four continents and highlights the company as the largest glass company in America, the section doesn't provide a comprehensive view of the market presence or competition.
    • A difficult task! I added a paragraph under Hobbs, Brockunier and Company that compares the size of Hobbs to the average for a glassware manufacturer. There were 72 glassware companies in 1880, so it would be difficult to name them all or decide which ones were the main competitors. The paragraph mentions that Bakewell (Pittsburgh's most famous glass manufacturer) closed in 1882. It also mentions that "During the 1890s, many glassware companies (possible competitors) were combined in glassware trusts, such as National Glass Company and United States Glass Company." The reader can follow the wikilink to United States Glass Company and National Glass Company (under Indiana Glass) to get names of about 30 glassware manufacturers. I could put giant footnotes that list them if you think that is necessary, but I think that is too much. TwoScars (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  •  Resolved Sounds good. No need for giant footnotes I was more concerned about providing context for the market which I think this does. My only concern is that the parenthetical statements might end up being considered original research.

Exceptional art glass edit

Wow, this stuff is pretty! I think I might go after one of these vases for a decorative piece. That is if I can find one that I can afford.

  • I don't have any real changes to be made, overall this section is good.

Talent provider edit

  • "The company had a policy of using skilled glassworkers from Europe, who would train the local employees—resulting in a superior workforce." Why from Europe? I would elaborate on this more.
    • Added a paragraph discussing Venice and the recession in German areas of Northern Europe. I'm worried that it may have drifted too off topic. TwoScars (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  •  Resolved Sounds good. I think the context is important for the reader's understanding, if it is too much for this section you could move some to the background or turn it into a note.
  • "Owens was also involved with improving a machine for producing window glass, which changed the way window glass was produced." This sounds important but is glossed over. If this isn't particularly pertinent to J. H. Hobbs, Brockunier and Company just ignore this comment.
    • Will get to this tomorrow afternoon. Important, but maybe not so pertinent to J. H. Hobbs—they did not make window glass. Maybe I will add a sentence or two. Libbey and Owens bought the patents of Irving Wightman Colburn and hired him. Together, Owens and Colburn refined the process and it (along with the European Fourcault process) changed the way window glass was made. TwoScars (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Skip this if you don't think it's pertinent, I am going to default to you on this as you have far greater knowledge of the glass industry than I do.
  • Added three sentences about Owens and Colburn. TwoScars (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  •  Resolved Looks good.

Sources Spotcheck edit

  • Citation 3 looks good
  • Citation 4 looks good
  • Citation 6 looks good
  • Citation 17 looks good
  • Citation 20 source looks good but please see the comment under Background
  • Citation 21 looks good
  • Citation 38 looks good
  • Citation 46 looks good
  • Citation 51 looks good
  • Citation 59 looks good
  • Citation 67 looks good except for one issue I mention under Golden era
  • Citation 70 looks good
  • Citation 82 looks good
  • Citation 87 looks good
  • Citation 96 looks good
  • @ZombiUwU: I believe I am all caught up. Am I missing anything, or is there anything else? TwoScars (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Plagiarism Check edit

Looks good with a low score and no obvious copyright violations. [1]

Chart edit

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, as shown by a source spot-check:
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.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
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.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._H._Hobbs,_Brockunier_and_Company&oldid=1213742759"