Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Shelby Gem Factory/1

Shelby Gem Factory

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: Delist - While the article is much improved, cruft and unsupported claims still remain. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Coldwell GA. I approved it in January, but it has sourcing issues. I have attempted a partial rewrite (which included two SIGCOV sources unavailable to Doug), but this is not my field, and I'm a bit out of my depth here after having seen this page too much. I'm hoping that the rest of the article can be improved—it has great images and concerns a now-defunct operation—but I can't take this much further than I already have. I only approved two Coldwell GAs of six I reviewed; the other one was delisted here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at this through a critical prism so please feel free to ignore any of my comments. FYI, looking at it as the article currently is, this seems like it was a reasonable approval at the time.

Article improvements

In the history section it says Larry and his wife Jo later became the sole owners of ICT. Is there some information that can be added?

Probably not. I'm hampered here by the poor availability of regional newspapers. West Michigan is not my jam at all.

There are a couple of spots where it would be good if it was clearer which Kelley was being described. For example Kelley died on October 24 at the end of the history section.

Done

There seems to a mix of talking about the "Shelby Gem Factory" and the company "International Crystal Technology". Would it make more sense to present it as being about the company instead and the factory as the centre of their operations? It should at least have a redirect from ICT.

The company was most definitely better known as Shelby Gem Factory, and the ICT name is not used in some of the longer features, such as the 1990 Detroit News article. I believe the article is at the proper location.

In the Gem manufacturing section should Czochralski method be a "see also" which might mean that some of the text may be redundant.

I've added this, but I encourage you to make the edits needed to reduce redundancy.

Items of concern

I am concerned about the statement that they were the "first commercial producer" of Cubic zirconia given that:
- the reference comes from the "Oceana's Herald-Journal" which apperas to be a county newspaper for a county of less than 30,000 people.
- the lack of a corresponding statement on the Cubic zirconia page. i.e. if it is true then it should be there as well.
  - I have found a second and slightly better source, the 1999 Flint Journal article, for this claim. I am unfamiliar with this topic area and don't know where I'd look for trade publications.
I was just looking at the statement They have a D color rating, the highest rating for diamonds (as determined by the Gemological Institute of America). Although some of the company's products were "simulants", their synthetic ruby and sapphire stones were not imitations; they had the same chemical and crystalline structure that is found in natural stones. The Shelby Gem Factory also manufactured simulated citrine and topaz, along with other birthstone substitutes.[5] and, unless I am missing something, all that refernce #5 supports is that the manufactured gems are crystals and he figured out how to make birthstone gems but in the text it says that that was early on and does not mention when (or even if) they were sold commercially.
The statement The factory did not use the Verneuil method of "pulling" crystals, using temperature differences like the process that forms an icicle. Rather, it used the Czochralski method, in which small fragments of mined gems were then used as seeds to re-crystallize liquid into larger gemstones, akin to chemical vapor deposition. Larry Kelley believed that his firm was the only company in the world to use this method. also relies on the same reference which says that they mainly use pulling and growing without mentioning the names of the methods so it comes across as WP:OR. Also the fact that the reference says that they did use pulling but the text says that they did not.

Gusfriend (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taking these last two together: This is the area where I'm struggling to de-puff the page. If I could get through this, Gusfriend, I might not have taken it to GAR. I'd encourage someone else to consider clearing out the cruft and unsupported claims. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:48, 8 November 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.