Talk:The Churchill Machine Tool Company/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

By now I've had a very quick read through of the article and I suspect that it lies somewhere between GA-level and FA-level; however, I will only be assessing it against WP:WIAGA, so at most it will gain GA from this review. Having said that, the way the article has been written in some places could in a "worst-case" provoke a claim of WP:OR so I will be suggesting changes to the presentation to minimise any risks of such an event.

I will now go through the article again in more detail and just pick up any problems. As per my choice, I will be leaving the WP:Lead until last. I may "correct" minor "problems" where it is less effort to do so, as apposed to listing them here and waiting for them to be done by the nominator (or another). Pyrotec (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• History -
  • Charles Churchill -

• 3rd paragraph: "... wire-braiding of crinoline frames; and he simultaneously ... ". I don't think he and later his means Rolt: its more likley to be Charles.

Comment - agreed, it is sloppy phrasing. I'll fix when you have completed your first detailed run-through. - Sitush (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Action - rephrased - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC) - Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• 4th paragraph: "A search of The London Gazette shows several announcements ....". I suggest that ""A search of" be removed (for reasons, see above).

Comment - agreed. The phrase simply is not necessary, regardless of potential OR issues. - Sitush (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Action - removed - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC) - Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• At GA, I'm willing to allow the following to stand, "as is": "Churchill's location is stated as being New York for the 1865 applications (Buckingham was at Westmoreland House, Walworth Common, Surrey); for those of 1867 and 1868 he was in Norwood, Surrey and states himself to be a merchant; still listing himself as a merchant, the 1869–70 applications show his summarised address as Darnley Crescent, Hackney, Middlesex; and therefter as a merchant at Wilson Street, Finsbury. Willis Churchill, Clark and Gee were all shown as being of New York City; Tiffany (a prolific patentor in the US) was of Bennington, Vermont; Miller was of West Meriden, Connecticut; and Beach of Newark, New Jersey". For FAC, its likely to need citations, which I assume are all in the table above it.

Comment - the information is indeed contained in the citations, but I'm not happy about the parenthetical comment relating to Tiffany and will remove it. - Sitush (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Action - removed the text I disliked - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC) - Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• The final paragraph might be WP:OR, but I don't have all the sources to check.

Comment - the very final part would, I suspect, fail on the grounds of synthesis but that which precedes is documented directly in the cited sources. I am happy to remove: "It is something of an aside, but worth pointing out, that there is a slight curiosity in the sources here: it is Jeremy's assertion that J W W Gabriel disposed of the interest but a notice in The London Gazette for 1885 shows his father, John Wild Gabriel, ending a partnership with Troke, and that Troke then formed a similar arrangement with another person, but there is no such notice at any time for his son doing so;[27] and UK records of deaths suggest that John Wild Gabriel died in 1885." However, I'd prefer to do this in such a way that Troke's comment, which I presume to be peer-reviewed since it is from the ODNB, can be retained even if the curiosity which follows it is dispensed with. I can send you a PDF of the ODNB entry if you wish: regardless of AGF, I want this article to be right and will assist wherever possible to ensure that it is so, so please do not hold back. - Sitush (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind offer. My public library card gives me access to the ODNB entry; and I've seen it, so I was not particularly referring to that reference. Expanding on my (unduly) short comment. Firstly, I don't like some the words used, it looks like possible OR/synthesis. Some of ref 25 is visible on Google books, but not page 324, so the question in my mind was how much of that is verifiable - I assume that "it is claimed that Churchill ...." is verifiable; and that "Although it is difficult to envisage in view of his then undischarged bankruptcy" is commentary? Similarly, I don't much like "The answer may lie in fact that at some point" and "It is something of an aside, but worth pointing out, that there is a slight curiosity in the sources here". Stepping back somewhat, perhaps the "problem" is just I don't like the words, and that is the only problem. This paragraph consists of a number of verifiable statements and some commentary that there is inconsistency between the sources. That is an acceptable processes; and some changes to the prose will hopefully resolve any differences. Pyrotec (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The phrasing can be fiddled with, no problem (I hope). I can the page you refer to - search results inc. page 324 - Sitush (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Woops! I was trying to be too clever and preview that page in full. Pyrotec (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Action - revised the entire paragraph: less commentary, more verifiable statement. Not sure if this is now ok or requires more work. I've also moved the wikilinked convert tmplte to its first appearance in the text & converted BSA into wikilinked B'ham Small Arms Co. in the lead - these are unilateral edits but hopefully ok. - Sitush (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, its much improved. Pyrotec (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Early years as a limited company -

• Looks OK.

Comment - good. I was slightly concerned that a reviewer might consider the use of information from trade directories to be OR. Also, there is a slight problem with them because although they are online it is impossible to link directly to the relevant page, so anyone who wants to check online will have to do some legwork of their own when they get to the source website. - Sitush (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The requirement is compliance with WP:WIAGA, particularly 2 (a), (b), (c) and how much I choose to do myself, or ask the nominator to do is (technically) my decision; and different reviewers come to different decisions. I'd rather not award GA and have it overturned, so I tend to do two-day reviews but some people do "six in an hour"; and, I once did 58 reviews in one month (April 2010) and "burnt out". Pyrotec (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Expansion -

Stopping for now. ....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Looks OK.

• • The fallow years & Reorganisation -

• These two subsections look OK. Pyrotec (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Subsequent history: The Churchill Machine Tool Co. Ltd. & Subsequent history: Charles Churchill & Co. Ltd. -

• These two subsections look OK.

• Recognition & Notable staff -

• These two sections look OK.

• WP:Lead -

• A bit "thin" for for an article of this breadth, but probably acceptable.

Comment - I agree that it is thin. I've had issues with this from the outset of my involvement with the article: I can see that it doesn't do the thing full justice but am blowed if I can work out a suitable alternative or expansion. Any suggestions? Or am I stuck with my own devices here? - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

At this point there are a few minor "problems" that need some attention so I will put this review "On Hold". Pyrotec (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The WP:Lead is intended to both introduce the topic of the article, which it does well, and to summarise the main points in the article. I would suggest that a "bit more meat" is added to the "summary function". For instance: growth of parent company through the stages of private, partnership and limited co up to the end of WW I, moved into precision grinding; expand on the rationalisation of 1960s/70s followed by its liquidation. You've already got the summary of its BSA, TI, etc, era. I would suggest that a target would be to roughly double the size of the current lead. Pyrotec (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Action - lead now expanded per comments of User:Pyrotec. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A comprehensive, well referenced and illustrated article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced using a wide range of sources.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA. Congratulations on producing a fine article.

I consider that this article is well on its way to being a WP:FAC; however my oppinion is only one "voice" and it may be prudent to obtain a wider range of view points through the medium of WP:PR. Pyrotec (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, and also to the other editors who have contributed to this article and/or offered advice along the way.. Your comments and assistance in dealing with a newbie at GA Review have been part of an invaluable learning experience for me and they are much appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)