Wikipedia:Peer review/Churchill Machine Tool Company/archive1

Churchill Machine Tool Company

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has just be accepted as a GA and the reviewer in that process advises that it is "well close" to being a FAC in their opinion. The reviewer further advised that I seek other opinions via the peer review process.

Thanks, Sitush (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Sitush, seeing that I was starting to review, kindly informed me that the article had become temporarily unstable. I'm posting a few thoughts that I had recorded in a sandbox, but this is not a complete review. In fact, I have not yet read the whole article. I'd be happy to continue the review when the article again becomes stable.

• The dab checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.

Comment - fixed. Handy tool, not used it before. - Sitush (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done

Charles Churchill

• "which was so locally prominent that the area of town in which it was situated" - Would it be possible to add the name of the town?

Comment - clarified. I thought it was clear, but it is now clearer! - Sitush (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done

• "According to historian Rolt," - I would add his initials, "L.T.C."

Comment - done. - Sitush (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done

• "This is a moot point... " - It seems odd to add this editorial aside. Who says it is moot? Also, how is the Gatling Gun relevant? If the point is moot, and the Gatling Gun is unrelated to Churchill's business, would it be best simply to delete the "moot point" sentence? The next sentence might start with "Rolf says that Charles Churchill & Co. began trading in 1865... ".

Comment - as becomes clear later in the article, Churchill fitted out the Gatling factory. The reason for using the word "moot" is because, frankly, Rolt was wrong but I have not found a direct source to cite yet (well, not one that meets the RS etc guidelines). You will now say that this is OR, probably - I'd rather find a way to deal with the issue that doesn't involve removing the point because it is a significant error in the history. - Sitush (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• The fourth and fifth paragraphs of this section lack inline citations to reliable sources. My rule of thumb is to provide at least one source for each paragraph as well as sources for any unusual claims, statistics, or direct quotations.

Comment - added a cite for one sentence but this is awkward. The information in these paragraphs comes from the citations in the intervening table.

 Done - reviewer amended wording to resolve the issue. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Comment - have always been aware of these issues & have done as best I can. I think it is ok. - Sitush (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

General comment from nominator - forgive me for the occasions when I use the word I in my comments here. The term is just a simple way of putting things - it is not intended to assert or claim ownership. You may notice that I am by far the major contributor and, I think, every fact in the thing has arisen because of my contribution. I've acknowledged on several occasions the work and assistance of other editors, including at GA nomination. - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Further Finetooth comments: I'm not done, but here are a few more:

Lead

• "The Churchill Machine Tool Company Ltd began its existence as the manufacturing subsidiary[1] of the machine tool importers Charles Churchill & Co Ltd; and was founded in the early 1900s by US-born Charles Churchill (1837–1916)." - I see two things to comment on in this first sentence. (1) The semicolon after "Ltd" isn't the right punctuation; I don't think you need even a comma here, though some editors might disagree. (2) I also wonder if the "Ltd" in the company name needs a period, since it is an abbreviation of "Limited". The "Co" is an abbreviation for "Company" and also normally takes a period. I would suggest using whatever the company officially called itself, if that can be determined, and using that formulation throughout the article.
  • Comment - standardised on no periods, as per next point. MOS merely insists on consistency & usage varies. Easy enough to flip the other way if any sort of consensus emerges or MOS changes. Punctuation about to be fixed. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done

• The company name appears as "The Churchill Machine Tool Company Ltd" in the first sentence but then as "The Churchill Machine Tool Co Ltd" further along and then "The Churchill Machine Tool Company Ltd" even further along, all in the lead. I'd try to make them all the same to keep readers from getting confused.
  • Comment - I've had all sorts of problems with this & the WP:MOS. Not sure where to go with it as the sources also vary. But, yes, it does need standardising for the purposes of WP. I'll have a think & let you know. - Sitush (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have standardised on Co and Ltd, without periods. Exceptions are where those terms appear as part of a quote or a citation title. Also, both companies are introduced in the lead initially with their full name, per MOS. - Sitush (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done

Charles Churchill

• "According to historian L. T. C. Rolt, the original installation was of machines for the wire-braiding of crinoline frames; and Charles simultaneously imported some metal cutting machine tools in order to aid his friend Hiram Maxim in the development of Maxim's machine gun. This is a moot point: the Maxim gun was not developed for a further 20 years and it is unlikely that Maxim himself was in England during the 1860s;[7] however, the Gatling Gun was patented in 1862." - Maybe it would be better to add an inline citation for the Rolt claim, and then say, "However, the Maxim gun was not developed..." with its own inline citation. The final part, about the Gatling Gun being patented in 1862, could be turned into a separate sentence with its own inline citation. Otherwise it appears that citation 7 is only supporting the "not developed for 20 years" claim and the claim that it was unlikely that he was not in England during the 1860s. (Sorry if I'm repeating myself, and I know you responded to a similar note above. I'm trying to think of a way to maybe source this piece by piece to various reliable sources.)
  • Comment - your point is more clear to me now and, yes, it is valid. I'll work on it. - Sitush (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Despite the assertion by Jeremy that J W W Gabriel" - Should "Jeremy" be further identified? Should J. W. W. have periods since L. T. C. has them?
  • Comment - again, we're back at the MOS issue! Academic convention would be to use the surname only, especially since these authors are named in the citations/bibliography. What the Wikipedia convention may be is beyond me but I'm happy to accept the wisdom of others on these points and will learn from them. Basically, I'm throwing the ball back into your court here <g> - Sitush (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I was afraid you might. I'm not always sure at first whether I'm mentioning something that an author has already considered or whether it's just something that escaped his or her attention. Clearly you have considered this one (and much else besides). I've learned a lot of MOS things by osmosis as well as looking them up again and again, but the MOS is not entirely stable, is flexible on some points, and doesn't cover every situation clearly. Finally, even when I think I remember what the MOS says, I sometimes can't find the section I think I'm remembering. With the given names, I'd just aim for consistency within the article. You are right about the academic convention, but I'm thinking of ordinary readers who won't know the convention and might be flummoxed by the surname standing alone. To help them, I think I'd add a brief identifying description like "economic historian A B C Jeremy" on first use. Then plain Jeremy would be OK after that. (I just made up the "economic historian A B C" part. I don't actually see Jeremy in the citations or bibliography, and I have no idea who he is. Or am I missing something? Sometimes the answer is right in front of me, and I don't see it.) Finetooth (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

See cite #9. Let me know when you have finished for the day & I'll nip in and sort this out, and for other authors noted also. Oddly, I do mention his name in full elsewhere but not on the first occurrence - my mistake. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done

Early years as a limited company

• "It is either a quaint example of the niceties of late nineteenth century trade journals, or of their complaisance towards Charles, or simply of his influence in the US by this time, that in January 1901 it was reported in American Machinist that he (and his wife and daughter) had just returned home to London after a visit to the US which was not for business but rather to see his ageing mother." - The cited source seems to support only a part of this set of claims. The first part, "It is either a quaint example of the niceties of late nineteenth century trade journals, or of their complaisance towards Charles, or simply of his influence in the US by this time... " makes judgments and draws conclusions that come from where? Finetooth (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - spot on, the comment is WP:OR. Not beyond the bounds, I suspect, but the entire paragraph is arguably trivia and I'm surprised that it has survived as long as it has. I'll work something out but the easiest route is probably just to delete the para: it would be a shame as it is a curiosity (I think), but sometimes that's the way thing go. Thanks for your continued work on this article. - Sitush (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done - rephrased. - Sitush (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Even more Finetooth comments:

Early years as a limited company

• "In 1907 the company was seeking to wind up the Aston Cantlow Mill Ball and Bearing Company Ltd." - I'm not sure what "wind up" means in this context. Is might be slang for "start", but it appears to be slang for "shut down" or "sell". How was its "winding up" connected to Leitner Electrical Company Ltd.?

Comment - Not slang - it is a legal term. However, I've wikilinked it now. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done

Expansion

• "The Glasgow office address changed some time between February 1905 and March 1906, with the outlet relocating to 9 Wellington Street." - This seems disconnected from the preceding material in this section. Try as I might, I can't seem to keep clear in my mind which Churchill company is which and whether a reference to Churchill means one company or the other or Churchill himself. I don't know how I would handle this problem if I were the main contributor, but I'd think about using a kind of shorthand. Abbreviations would work, but there are probably no standard abbreviations for these companies. I would be tempted to call one "the machine tool company" and the other "the Charles Churchill company" early in the lead and thereafter to help the reader differentiate them, but I'm not sure this would work. Something to think about.

Comment - This issue has been a nightmare right through. Your suggestion - "machine tool company" etc - might in fact work but I'm open to all offers of advice as it is a complete pain. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• "remained in service at least until the 1990s and was used primarily to grind the journals of large crankshafts" - I'm unfamiliar with "journal" used in this way. What does it refer to? Should it be linked or briefly explained?

Comment - I'll explain/link it - Sitush (talk)

 Done

• "Slater's Manchester, Salford & Suburban Directory of 1911 listed Charles Churchill & Co. Ltd. (manager Sydney H March) at 6 Oxford Street and 7 Lower Mosley Street... " - Here and there, the article discusses the exact addresses of these companies and their subsidiaries. Are the addresses always important enough to include in a general encyclopedia article, or would it improve the flow of the article to compress or trim these in some way?

Comment - if I could find the "some way" then I would address it (excuse the pun). I do think that they are relevant and there have been quite a few readers and contributors to this page who have not raised it as an issue. However, there is no doubt that it is detailed. I wonder if these could be referenced in some way as a note, thus taking them out of the body of the article but still allowing those who have an interest to see the detail? - Sitush (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Fallow years

• "A summary-box to the article says that:" - I think the quote following this intro is long enough for a blockquote.

Comment - yep. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done

Subsequent history

• Generally, it's a good idea to merge extremely short paragraphs or, in some cases, to expand them so that they are not stand-alone orphans. Here and there, a single-sentence orphan appears in the article, and I only mention it now because I see several consecutive short ones in this section.

• "No further information regarding this company appears to be available, not even its name." - This claim seems to be based on original research. Appears to whom?
  • Comment - this is awkward. If the mention of the company is left without some sort of comment then it is "hanging" and will make the article appear incomplete on the point. If I remove the mention totally then there is also incompleteness, and this is quite a curiosity in the history of the business which may at some point be resolved by a contributor. Unsure what to do here. - Sitush (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Action - Removed OR statement. Not entirely sure that this is beneficial to the article but I appreciate the point is in line with policy.

 Done - Sitush (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• "It would appear that Ralph Gabriel may have had a personal interest in sailing... " - Appear to whom? The source confirms that he loaned his sloop to the OYT, but it does not confirm the inference.

 Done - fixes to the previous OR point have assisted in resolving this one. - Sitush (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Companies House has archived its information... " - I was not sure what "Companies House" referred to. Was it explained or linked earlier in the article? I might well have missed it.
  • Comment - it wasn't; it now is (first mention, table heading). - Sitush (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done

• "The reason for this is not known but in all likelihood relates to the capital restructuring program which started in 1955." - Is not known to whom? Who says what the likely reason is?
  • Comment - remove as OR. - Sitush (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done

Recognition

• "Among more obviously serious matters, Roberts points to the Herbert board's imposition of a rule that shop-floor employees, mostly if not all male, must wear pink uniforms as being typical of their distance from reality, their fad-ism and tendency to make mountains of molehills." - This is pretty strong stuff. To whom is it "obviously serious"? It would be interesting to know what other things the Herbert board did that upset Roberts.

Other

• I want to add here that this is the most detailed history of a company that I've ever attempted to review, and I feel not quite adequate to the task. I have no special background in economics or engineering. The article seems comprehensive to me in the sense that I know of nothing that is missing. In fact, I find the details a little overwhelming in places; the plethora of specific addresses would be an example and the plethora of interlocking companies another. The bottom line is that while I hope I've made some helpful suggestions, I'm pretty sure I've missed things, maybe even some big things. It would be a good idea to have an historian, an economist, and an engineer look this over as well. Where you might find them, I do not know. Best of luck. Finetooth (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)