Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Haskelite/1

Haskelite[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. Hog Farm _Talk 22:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the article about anything post World War II and it gives no indication whether or not it is still being manufactured (although I suspect that it isn't). It also doesn't include information about what happened to the product when the Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation was split up. Also, was it ever produced by Haskell Manufacturing Company? The Haskell Manufacturing Company says that it is but this page is unclear about it. How did it relate and compete with other plywoods? There is only a single reference after 1965 which I suspect is part of the issue. Gusfriend (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of the final paragraph, from "One of these airplanes..." forward, is lightly-rephrased copyvio from the cited Chicago Tribune source. e.g.

Our article: One of these airplanes received a commercial license to fly daily, and 500 hours of testing proved its worthiness.
Source: One of these ships has received a commercial license and is flying daily. More than 500 hours has been flown in the plane and it is proved to have superior performance.
Our article: The fuselage was molded in 2 hours 35 minutes, which was 1⁄30 the time required to construct an ordinary fuselage.
Source: The fuselage of the plane was molded in 2 hours 35 minutes, about one-thirtieth of the time taken to construct an ordinary fuselage.
Our article: It was without longitudinal or cross bracing.
Source: It is without longitudinal or cross bracing and is very light.

That took 30 seconds to identify, and there's no good reason to trust the policy compliance of other text in the article. To the contrary, if this is what we see in the easily checked sources, we might safely assume that the sources we can't easily access have been treated in the same way. A ground-up rewrite is probably necessary simply to comply with our basic copyvio policies, regardless of any other issues. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been wondering if the best approach is to propose a 3-way merge between this page, the Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation and the Haskell Manufacturing Company. This would give us a single longer page with more information and rewriting to deal with at least some of the copyvios as they were all largely written by the same editor. Gusfriend (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, if you want to stubify the articles, RD1 the copyvio, redirect two of the titles to the third and write the article from there, sure, sounds great. This article's essence could be captured in no more than a paragraph or two, I would think, which means it would fit tidily in a company article's "Products" section. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed a merge from Haskell canoe into this one as a starting point for future work. Gusfriend (talk) 10:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can actually be a 4-way merge between Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation, Haskell Manufacturing Company, Haskelite, and Haskell canoe. It appears that we have four articles about what may be, at most, two notable subjects:

Haskell Manufacturing Company, which formed a subsidiary called the Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation - although the Haskell building may merit its own article if it has a history that's substantially separate from the company
Haskelite, from which Haskell canoes are made

However, it seems that Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation was the main or only manufacturer of Haskelite. Furthermore, the Haskell canoe could be easily merged, given that it's a minor product from the Haskell Manufacturing Company that was made out of Haskelite. The Haskell canoe article has a grand total of five sources (three from specialized trade journals and two from local newspapers), which don't really convince me of its notability. Even when the canoe article passed GAN, it was sourced mainly to wood-related trade journals, plus an archive collection and a local newspaper.

That brings me back to this article. To be honest, I'm not sure that Haskelite is notable, either. Even if the article did not contain copyright violations, there are only two paragraphs about the type of wood itself (even in the version of the article that passed GAN). The rest of the article is about the products made from this wood, which go into extreme (and arguably even excessive) detail. I think this article should be delisted on copyright concerns alone. Nonetheless, it seems like the reader would be much better served if these four articles were merged into one, more comprehensive, page. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My slightly longer term plan is a 4 way merge starting with the canoe and this one and then the two companies then all together but I am doing it bit by bit to try to avoid overwhelming the GAR and other processes. I think that you are probably right about the building being worthy of a standalone article as it is on the NHRP. Gusfriend (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's becoming more and more clear that we need a special process to deal with DC's creations. It's more than just a question of GA delisting -- everywhere I look it's WP:TNT for copyvio, nonnotability, misuse of sources, etc. Part of me feels bad for the guy but his defiant IDHT at ANI makes it hard to be sympathetic. E Eng 00:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen a 1920 reference supporting "the largest plywood sheet ever produced", related GA articles saying different things, statements not supported by references and more I agree. There needs to be somewhere that we can table all concerns and tick things off when they are done and it seems to be outside the scope of the CCI work and the GAR. I would be happy to be involved but have no idea where I would start suggesting it. Gusfriend (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a page for the building at Haskell Manufacturing Company Building as a stubish level article. Gusfriend (talk) 08:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haskell canoe has been merged to the Haskelite page. Gusfriend (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Clearly nowhere near meeting the requirements for broad coverage. That, plus the copyvio, means this requires a total rewrite or even merge as suggested above. Regardless, clearly not fit for GA status. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.