Talk:Star Watch Case Company/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 04:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I will begin this review within a week. — The Most Comfortable Chair 04:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• I became preoccupied with something unexpected this past week. I will have the review by next Sunday, at most. Thank you for your patience. — The Most Comfortable Chair 11:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Lead

• "from approximately 1905 until it went out of business in 1982" → "from around 1903–05 until it went out of business in 1982".

•  Done

• Infobox — "1905" → "Between 1903 and 1905" — "150 start, 550 at peak" → "150 at start; 550 at peak" — "Parent" → "Predecessor" — Need more items in the "Products" parameter — Also, need official titles of "Key people".

•  Done

• Link — "Hamilton"; "Longines"; "Gruen"; "Elgin".

•  Done

• Could add a sentence mentioning the astronaut and space bit. Also, one more about its demise.

•  Done

Products

• "Omega" link needs to be corrected.

•  Done

• "The immediate predecessor of the Star Watch Case Company...in the local newspaper that showed the years of service for these employees." — Essentially the entire section, excluding the first two paragraphs, should be moved to a new "History" section, which precedes the "Products" section.

•  Done

• "The company was well insured, so it was able to recover." → "The company was well insured, and it was able to recover." — Since recovery is not entirely contingent on just insurance.

•  Done

• "A North and south wings" → "North and South wings" or "North and south wings"

•  Done

• "for tool and die equipment and machinery" → "for tool, die equipment and machinery"

•  Done

Government involvement

• I would recommend renaming the section to the widely used term — "Government procurement".
• Unlink — "watch"

•  Done

• "The Company produced" → "The company produced".

•  Done

• "Other similar Star models were worn on various space missions" — Can those mission names be specified? And astronaut names, if possible.

•  Done

Design

• "The Star Watch Case pantograph could engrave up to 32 watch cases at a time, much more efficiently than hand engraving." — The former point has been made earlier in the paragraph. I would suggest removing the entire sentence, and merging the latter (about it being more efficient than hand engraving) to the earlier mention.

•  Done

• Link — "White Pine Village" in the prose.

•  Done

• "by 1930 hand engraving of pocket watches become obsolete." → "by 1930 hand engraving of pocket watches became obsolete."

•  Done

• "A local Ludington bank" — If the name is known, its better to mention it.

•  Done

• Before the bullet points are mentioned, write one brief sentence explaining what those bullet points will cover.

•  Done

• "The company's trade mark is" → "The company's trade mark was".

•  Done

Demise

• "The American watch industry held their position until World War I when wrist watches came into vogue and Switzerland then became involved producing them." → "The American watch industry held their position until World War I when wristwatches came into vogue and Switzerland started producing them."

•  Done

"wrist watch" → "wristwatch" at multiple places in the paragraph.

•  Done

• "By 1961 Switzerland" → "By 1961, Switzerland"

•  Done

• "Prance" → "France", I presume.

•  Done

• "with Switzerland's rate at about one-fourth and Japan's rate at about one-twelfth." → "with Switzerland's rate at about one-fourth and Japan's rate at about one-twelfth compared to the United States."

•  Done

• "In the 1960s the" → "In the 1960s, the"

•  Done

• "In 1979 it" → "In 1979, it"

•  Done

• "By 1982 the" → "By 1982, the"

•  Done

Footnotes

• Don't have to mention "Ludington, Michigan" for Ludington Daily News references as it is self-evident.

•  Done

• Cannot access reference 20 and 21 — Need to find the current link, its wayback archive, or alternate sourcing.

•  Done

• Reference 1 and 18 — "Peterson, Paul S." — are the same, with different page numbers.

•  Done

• Reference 2, 3, and 24 — "Leonore P. Williams" → "Williams, Leonore P." — Also, need "via" for Newspapers.com — Reference 3 and 24 are the same with different page numbers, so they should be merged and pages should be "pp. 1, 7."

•  Done

• Reference 4, 5, and 12 — "National Association of Watch and Clock Collectors bulletin" → "National Association of Watch and Clock Collectors Bulletin".

•  Done

• Reference 8, 13, 15, and 26 — Need "via" for Newspapers.com.

•  Done

• Reference 9 — "Ludington Daily News-page 14" → "Ludington Daily News" with "p. 14." — Also, "Ludington Plant doubles capacity" → "Ludington Plant Doubles Capacity".

•  Done

• Reference 10 — "Retail and Far prices for prodcts 194=1949" → "Retail and Farm Prices for Selected Products 1947–49 and 1969".

•  Done

• Reference 11 — "Ludington Daily News-page 4" → "Ludington Daily News" with "p. 4." — Also, "The Star Watch Company salutes its employees and their families" → "The Star Watch Company Salutes its Employees and their Families".

•  Done

• Reference 13 — "Use Star Cases" → "Use 'Star' Cases"

•  Done

• Reference 19 — "Lee Bailham and Eric M. Jones (2004)" → "Bailham, Lee; Jones, Eric M. (2004)".

•  Done

• Reference 20 — Dates should be formatted as "Month DD, YYYY" for consistency across references — Also, don't have to link "Bienne, Switzerland" since locations are not linked elsewhere in the references.

•  Done

• Reference 21 — Needs several parameters.

•  Done

• Reference 23 — "Star Watch Case Company: The products" → "Star Watch Case Company: The Products".

•  Done

• Reference 25 — Remove "Reference library (2020)" — Also, should have the "Month DD, YYYY" format.

•  Done

• Reference 26 — "O.A.Starke Jr. speaks to Rotarians Thursday" → "O.A.Starke Jr. Speaks to Rotarians Thursday"

•  Done

Further reading

• Google Books or Internet Archive links are fine (even no links), but it should not be Amazon. Also, consider expanding as the sources are expanded in "Sources" with various parameters.

•  Done

For now; I will look at the references, run spot-checks, and assess the lead in the morning. — The Most Comfortable Chair 05:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for review. I'll get started on the issues.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

That shall be all. Once you address the new points I raised, I will go through the article once more, fix what I can, and pass this. Fantastic work, as always! — The Most Comfortable Chair 15:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• @The Most Comfortable Chair: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Final

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Wonderfully illustrated and comprehensively written, the article makes for a pleasant and fascinating read. The article is referenced properly with reliable sources that are easily verifiable, and it meets the criteria. Thank you Doug Coldwell, who is arguably one of the most prolific editors on Wikipedia, for one more fine article related to Ludington, Michigan. — The Most Comfortable Chair 20:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• @The Most Comfortable Chair: Thanks for nice remarks. That makes 219 Good Articles.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)