Talk:Star Watch Case Company/GA1

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

Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 01:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be working on this review. My plan is to make two passes, leaving comments below as I go. The first pass will be for the prose, the second pass will be verification of the sources. Unless I explicitly say otherwise, you can assume that all my comments are just suggestions, which you can accept or reject as you see fit. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * just want to make sure you saw this. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2021 (UT

Closing
I'm still concerned about the quality of the prose in general. Much of it is choppy disjointed sentences that don't really flow. I've made a bunch of specific suggestions, which you've implemented, but as I read through it again, it's still kind of rough. You might want to get somebody else to look at this specifically to help with the writing.

I took a break from that and started looking at the sources. As noted below, I'm concerned that you're referring to a patent that you can't find. I started at the top and tried to verify the first reference. You don't have a link to the on-line copy of the article, so I had to go search through Google News to find it here. This is "Star Watch Case Company". Ludington Daily News. Ludington, Michigan. March 20, 1995. pp. 10–11. Unfortunately, I don't see anything on those pages with that title, so can't verify it.

Overall, I think you need to take some time and work through this all to clean up the writing. Perhaps WP:GOCE/REQ can help there. You also need to go through all the references, find on-line copies where available and include the URLs, and verify that the cited sources do indeed state what's in this article.

I'm going to have to fail this review.

Lead section

 * "company in Ludington, Michigan, that operated". Change "that" to "which"
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "would receive ... and did the final assembly". Mixed tenses.  Perhaps, "would receive ... and do the final assembly", or even better, "... and perform the final assembly"  Changing it the other way, "received .. and did/performed ..." works too.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "The final product was made ready for the customer and then could be sold". I would leave that entire sentence out; it's pretty much says the same thing as the previous sentence.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 08:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "Pocket watches were first made and later wristwatches were made." Avoid repetition of "made". Maybe rewrite it as, "The company's first products were for pocket watches, with wristwatches added later".
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Hmmm. Looking at this now, it still reads awkwardly.  Let me suggest yet another variation: "The company's first cases were for pocket watches, with those for wristwatches added later".  Or maybe, "The company first produced cases for pocket watches, with those for wristwatches added later".  Your call. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "The company was involved in making small mechanical parts...". Rewrite as, "The company also made small mechanical parts for military equipment during World War II".  Perhaps break off this and the previous sentence into a new paragraph.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Product

 * Change the section name to "Products".
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "Watch movements (the mechanical mechanism), the dial, hands, glass that covers the face of the watch (sometimes called the crystal), and some of the crowns (the button used to wind the watch) were made in another location and shipped to Star to assemble the final watch product." I suggest, "The movements (mechanisms), dials, hands, crystals (glass watch faces), and some of the crowns (buttons used to wind the watch) were made by other companies and shipped to Star to assemble into the final product".
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "Some of the companies it made watch cases for" Leave out "watch", i.e. "...it made cases for".
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "They were solid gold or gold filled, sterling silver, rolled nickel-silver and brass". The alternation of "or" with "and" is confusing.  It not clear if this is a list of 5 different types of cases, or if it's a mix-and-match, i.e. one case that's solid gold and brass, another one that's gold filled and brass, etc.  This should be clarified.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Perhaps, "They were available in solid gold, gold filled, sterling silver, rolled nickel-silver or brass." -- RoySmith (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "They included open face style and hunting style cases." How about, "Styles included open face and hunting cases".
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "The company also manufactured certain military items during World War II.". Break this off into its own paragraph, and expand on what kinds of items.  As written, there's actually more detail in the lead than here.
 * ✅ - There is a =Military= section.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Early history

 * "The company started in 1897". This is at odds with "Founded: 1905" in the info box.  This is resolved a few sentences later, but I think you want to tackle that right off to avoid the confusion.  Perhaps something like, "The immediate predecessor to Star Watch Case Company was..."
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "Sometime around 1902 to 1903 there was a large fire that" As above, that -> which.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "At the time the factory had 27 employees". Add comma after "At the time".  It's also not clear which time you are referring to.  Did they have 27 employees before the fire, or after it?
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "Star Watch Case Company moved in 1905 ..." This paragraph switches back and forth several times between talking about the company vs talking about the factory building.  The company moved.  The building was built.  The company had 150 employees.  The building had a north and south wing.  The company employed 400 men and women  Another wing was added to the building.  Tease this apart into two separate paragraphs, one talking about the company, the other talking about the building.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "By 1913 it had about 150 employees. The company employed 400 men and women in 1925" Combine these into something like, "In 1913 it had about 150 employees, growing to 400 men and women by 1925".  I'm not sure if the "men and women" adds anything, so perhaps leave that out. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "had a peak employment of about 550 employees at its height". height is redundant with peak.  Perhaps "Employment reached a peak during World War II, at 550". -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "The initial factory building was built on south Rath Avenue and had expanded by 1910" This is confusing.  The first part of the sentence talks about where it was built, and the second part brings in an unrelated thought regarding when it expanded.  I'd expect to see a more parallel progress of ideas, "The initial factory building built in 19xx on South Rath Avenue was xxx sq ft.  This was expanded in 1910 to yyy sq ft, with additional north and south wings added in 1920". -- RoySmith (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ - The source does not give sq ft, so I reworded accordingly. If you see further improvements that can be made here, let me know and I will follow up.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Engravers
No issues.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Factory
Maybe break this out into a "Gallery" section at the bottom of the article? Most of the photos are indeed of the factory building but the one of the logo isn't, and the check isn't. So the section title is misleading. As for the check image, maybe rename "Engravers" to "Employees", and move the check image into that. Use Inflation to convert the dollar amounts into today's dollars. Unless you have a citation for the cost of a loaf of bread and 10 pounds of potatoes, leave that out.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Military

 * "...90% of Star's production up to 1938." Instead of "up to", maybe "up until", or maybe even better, "prior to 1939".
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "Upon the entry..." This is confusing.  The previous sentence talks about up to 1938, and this sentence is about when we entered the war, which was 1941.  So what happened between 1938 and 1941?  Change "in the Second World War" to "into the Second World War"  Also, add comma after that phrase, separating it from "the factory was converted..."
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "The company had a reputation ... stainless steel". The use of "had" implies the reputation started before this era, which I assume is incorrect.  Maybe something like, "During this time, the company gained a reputation..."
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in use of "Second World War" vs "World War II". I would use the long form the first time you use it, then just say, "the war" in subsequent mentions.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "... components of military navigational aides." An "aide" is a person, which is clearly not what was intended here (despite it being mis-spelled that way in the source).  I think you mean "aids".
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "One such military component was the top secret". With the preceding sentence, it sounds like the bombsight was a navigational aid, which is incorrect.  Maybe something like, "They also made components for the top secret..."
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

NASA

 * "made watch cases". The "watch" is redundant, just say, "made cases".
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "one of which was worn by astronaut Eugene A. Cernan". Leave out "astronaut"; it's obvious he's an astronaut because he went to the moon.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "Other like models of Star's were worn". How about, "Other similar Star models were worn".
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Taking a break, more later.

Pantograph machine

 * Try this for the first couple of sentences:
 * A Star employee, Andrew Hallberg, invented a pantograph machine which increased production speed by allowing up to 32 watch backs to be engraved at the same time. The patent was assigned to the company.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You should look up the patent number and cite it.
 * ✅ Looked everywhere for the patent number and was able to find it. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "The cutting-edge technology..." This sentence is puzzling.  An essential part of a patent is disclosing the invention.  If the technology was kept secret, that's a trade secret, which is antithetical to having a patent.  It can't be both.  This needs to be clarified.
 * ✅ Source says, Star owned the patent for this invention, and closely guarded the technology. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The two images should be laid out better (not strictly a GA criteria). Look at multiple image, like I used at American Bank Note Company Printing Plant, for one possibility.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The last paragraph of this section, "The tool and die engineer..." is kind of disjointed, but I'm not sure what to do with it. Some specific points, however...  Don't capitalize "Master Plate".  You don't need to say "pantograph machine" all over.  Just refer to it like that the first time, then you can say just "machine", or even "it" if it's unambiguous.  The last sentence could be just, "By 1930, hand engraving of pocket watches had become obsolete".  Or perhaps, "The machine was so successful that by 1930 ..."
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Case Grades

 * Don't capitalize "grades" in the heading.


 * Reformulate this list as running prose, per WP:Manual of Style/Lists.


 * "The raw materials Star Watch Case Company used...", just "the company". But, beyond that, there's a disconnect between the beginning of the sentence, where you're talking about the raw materials, and the end, where you're talking about the cases.  Also, the list of metals are all nouns (gold, silver, etc), but "chrome-plated" is an adjective that doesn't modify anything.  Chrome-plated steel, perhaps?


 * "The gold supply..." Maybe, "The company's supply of gold was held in a local bank, with bars transferred to the factory to be melted down as needed"  Also, how many case's worth, or weeks of production worth, or whatever, is $200,000 of raw gold?  Use inflation for the dollar amount.  It's jarring to say, "always held about".  Always is an absolute, about is a vague number.  Maybe, "About $200,000 worth of gold was kept on-site at the factory at any one time"?


 * The image needs a caption.

More later.

Designs and Trade Marks

 * Lowercase trademarks.


 * Make "trade mark" one word, multiple places.


 * "An early popular design ... that had a", change "that" to "which". Also, it's not clear how this is relevant to the company.  Are you saying this was an early trademark of the company?  If so, say that.


 * "The company's trademark is...". Past tense, "trademark was", since the company no longer exists.  Also, it sounds like they've had a number of different trademarks over time, so referring to "the company's trademark" (singular) is incorrect.

Demise

 * The first two sentences are confusing. I get that Elgin wanted to diversify their vendor supply chain.  But, how did that lead to them dropping Star completely, not just cutting back on how much business Elgin gave Star?  This needs some clarification.  The rest of this paragraph needs extensive reworking to make it less choppy.


 * It's unclear how the pictured brick relates to the rest of the article.

Sources and Extra reading
Combine these two into a single "Additional reading" section.
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 08:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a complete first pass through the prose. Please work on these items. You can respond to my points in-line. My next big pass will be to look at each citation in detail, but I may hold off doing that until you've had a chance to work on the prose. When you're done responding to this set of prose comments, I may want to go back and do another pass.