Talk:Domino Sugar Refinery/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 16:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I plan to review this article shortly... Eddie891 Talk Work 16:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by comment on photos
That's a very good article, nice insight into how the "satanic mills" actually worked. Perhaps it's size and share of national production should be emphasized in the lead; it's amazing that such a share once concentrated in a single plant. About photographs. None of them shows present-day appearance of the historic structure (as seen e.g. on googlemaps); the one in the infobox also shows demolished buildings on the right with the misleading caption "The oldest standing buildings ...". I'd recommend clarifying what's standing and what's gone right in the captions (or, perhaps, add year of each photo?). Retired electrician (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I'll fix that shortly, and later on (when the current health situation is much better) I hope to go and take pictures of what's actually there. epicgenius (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

As usual, very well done, just some highly subjective comments, nothing major. Referencing checks etc will follow. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Prose Comments
 * " in the American round-arch style" how accurate is this? our article on round-arch style doesn't mention an American variation
 * Good point. I must've added that in accidentally. I removed it. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * " it employed up to 4,500 workers at its peak" year?
 * Added.
 * So it's a bit of an industrial complex? The infobox has me a little confused, your first two sentences in the lede imply this article is mostly focused on the sugar refinery time, but the infobox focuses almost solely on the development. Not sure what the best way to clear that up is, let me know what you think.
 * I rephrased it to clarify that it's a current mixed-use development, and former refinery. I added a factory infobox for factories as a supplement to the development infobox. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "with much of the commercial enterprises" perhaps "with most of the commercial enterprises"?
 * Done.
 * "The first member of the Havemeyer family to open a facility in Williamsburg was John Craig Havemeyer, Frederick Jr.'s nephew. At the end of 1856, John C. Havemeyer" are these the same John's? If not, what year did the former John open a facility? If yes, maybe standardize between Craig, and C. Then again, maybe not.
 * Yes, they are. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "According to sketches, the complex included a five-story building" any sketch you could add to the article?
 * I think it may be still under copyright, since it's from the newspaper article from 1926, and is "undated". I couldn't find an alternative elsewhere. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "the world's greatest sugar-refining center " perhaps it's the "world's largest", but imo 'greatest' is much harder to measure
 * Done.
 * "from John Minturn" worth mention who he was?
 * Well, he was just a landowner, not anyone of particular note. I removed his name. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "In addition, Theodore Havemeyer " perhaps clarify the date of this? At the same time?
 * Yep, the same month. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "processed about three-fourths of all refined sugar " WOAH! Since when did we progress from "more than half of the sugar consumed in the entire country"? I would have thought this merited a bit more of a mention
 * Yeah, this was at a time that the previous factory burned down. I moved it. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * " Insurance money, as well as the sale of assets, helped fund the rebuilding project" perhaps " Insurance money and the sale of assets helped fund the rebuilding project" or " The rebuilding project was funded in part by insurance money and the sale of assets."?
 * I went with the latter. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "a large competitive advantage" I know this might sound redundant, but maybe mention who or why it did. Obviously if you cannot be any more specific than "a large competitive advantage over competitors because it was new", it's not worth specifying.
 * It was because of its size. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "hired 1,000 men" were there any more employees, perhaps from the other refinery?
 * I should say "employed". 1,000 was the number of employees, including those from the previous refinery. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "rebuilt plant hired 1,000 men who were making 5,000 barrels of sugar daily." I'd suggest either "rebuilt plant had hired 1,000 men who were making 5,000 barrels of sugar daily" or "rebuilt plant hired 1,000 men who made 5,000 barrels of sugar daily." but I'm not particularly great with tenses such as these, so that may be wrong.
 * Went with the latter. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "the trust controlled 98% of the United States' sugar production" so did the reorganisation include a split, or did the company retain 98% control?
 * It was the latter. Before splitting, the company controlled 98% of sugar production. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "despite antitrust legislation" do you mean further legislation (i.e. the Clayton Antitrust Act, if memory serves), or antitrust litigation?
 * I think further legislation (so this is not a typo), but the source doesn't specify. It wouldn't be further lawsuits since that doesn't make sense. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "within the Filter House" I believe that it's filter house above. Perhaps standardize? (ditto for the other houses)
 * Yes. I fixed that now. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "eastern, northern, and southern Europe" should these be capitalized? Genuinely unsure here
 * Dunno. But I linked these anyway. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Workers were paid a starting salary of between $1.12 and $1.50 per day, with 5- or 10-cent pay increases according to tenure; the highest-paid workers at the plant earned between $100 and $150 a month" I'd love to see some of the salaries converted into present day terms
 * Added conversions. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * " although conditions improved in the early 20th century, when wages were increased and some workers received pensions" the first part suggests conditions for women improved, but the second half sounds like improvements that would benefit all workers...
 * Reworded, because it wasn't just women. In fact, most employees were men. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * " In 1917, while the refinery was producing sugar for the Allies" 1) add "during World War I? 2) why would the Allies need sugar? doesn't really make sense to me
 * Actually, the "Allies" part wasn't added by me. I removed it. Doesn't make sense to me either. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "American Sugar also proposed closing the five short dead-end streets" why?
 * To expand the plant, since the streets split up the refinery into separate blocks. It would be inconvenient to have public streets across private blocks. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "large rehabilitation of the plant" perhaps it might be better called a renovation?
 * Done.
 * Do you have later statistics about share of sugar production?
 * Not any good ones, I'm afraid. Only stats about the absolute number of units produced. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "The Brooklyn Citizen said that the refinery" date?
 * Added.
 * "Employment at the plant fell after World War II, with" maybe "Employment fell after the end of World War II in 1945; the company had"?
 * Yeah. I fixed it now. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "had defected," to one of other the non-existent refineries?
 * They actually broke the picket line and went back to work. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "The American Sugar Refining Company bought the brand" perhaps you mean American Sugar Refining?
 * Yes.
 * "The 11-acre site was purchased" do you need to convert acres? also, is there a cost given for the purchase?
 * I added the conversion and price. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "The LPC approved a redesign" what does LPC stand for here?
 * Added.
 * "a 16-story, 170-story tower " I think something's missing/off here?
 * Whoops. I fixed that. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "The refinery, when rebuilt in 1882–1883, was composed of several structures" personally, I'd prefer "when the refinery was rebuilt in 1882–1883, it was composed of several structures"
 * Done.
 * Thanks for the detailed review. I have addressed all of these points now. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'll be out of town and away from my computer pretty much this whole weekend, so I likely won't be able to finish up this review until monday-- Hope that's ok. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Earwigs suggests no copyvio
 * Images seem good-- recommend adding dates to the captions as Retired electrician suggests above
 * Source check
 * #1 ✅
 * #8 I don't see what it sources here (though I suffer from chronic not-reading-the-whole-page-itis)
 * #9 is wanting of page numbers
 * #10 a, b, c, d ✅
 * #15 the url should probably be marked as dead and the citation could use filling out to prove what makes it reliable. also, . By 1870, more than half of the sugar consumed in the entire country was refined there, and by 1870 more than half of the sugar consumed in the entire country was refined here. is too close for comfort
 * #17 ✅
 * #21 ✅
 * #25 ✅
 * #37 ❌ unreliable source, directly cites Wikipedia in the article
 * #38 ✅
 * #41 ✅
 * #50 ✅
 * #108✅
 * #109 source says it's about 836 applicants
 * Sources generally appear reliable, no major problems emerge. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Eddie. Here's my responses:
 * #8 is sourcing the fact that the Sugar House was formed at South Third Street and First Street (the latter now being called Kent Avenue).
 * I removed #9 as redundant.
 * I fixed #15, including the paraphrasing.
 * I removed #37 as unreliable.
 * #109 is a WP:CALC issue. 87,000 divided by 104 is 836.538461538. I think this should be rounded up to 837, which is what it is now. epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is now well written, referenced, comprehensive, neutral, illustrated, free from copyvio, and otherwise meets the GA criteria. Passing. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 00:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)