Talk:Indiana Glass Company

First Sentence

Some parts of this article look a bit odd, but the first sentence seems to be the largest offender:

"Indiana Glass Company manufactured pressed, blown and hand-molded glassware and tableware for almost 100 years."

Would it be better written in the format of other Wikipedia articles about companies, such as:

"Indiana Glass Company is an American company best known for the manufacturing of glassware and tableware."

---

Version for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indiana_Glass_Company&oldid=1100556316 Leafy46 (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Changed to "Indiana Glass Company was an American company that manufactured pressed, blown and hand-molded glassware and tableware for almost 100 years." It is important, from a glassmaking perspective, to have the pressed, blown, and hand-molded part in the sentence because these are different ways to manufacture glassware. TwoScars (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Indiana Glass Company/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 00:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'm doubtful about the logo being public domain. The logo wasn't prepared by a Patent Office employee; they incorporated it into one of their publications but that doesn't mean that whoever owned the logo's copyright lost their rights.

  Removed logo. TwoScars (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• Youtube is not a reliable source -- you have it both in the citations and the "External links" section.

  Removed from External Links and removed the note that used it as a citation. This is a shame, since the video shows actual glassmaking inside the plant, and shows the Indiana Glass glazer—a step between the mold and lehr that made the seams on the glassware smoother. I don't know of any other video that actually shows the production of pressed molded glassware at Indiana Glass. TwoScars (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, it's a pity. If you find a reliable source that refers to or links to this video, that might be enough to reinstate it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• Why do we say the company shut down in 2002 when a glass plant operated under the "Indiana Glass Company" name till 2008? In the body of the article we say that plant was part of Indiana Glass, after all.

  Does not say "company shut down in 2002". It says "Lancaster Colony ceased production at the Dunkirk factory of Indiana Glass during November 2002." In the same paragraph, it also says "After the shutdown at the Dunkirk facility, production continued at the Sapulpa plant under the Indiana Glass name." TwoScars (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  You're right, I misread it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• "At its peak in 1979, the Dunkirk facility employed about 1,300 people, and also had a plant in Sapulpa, Oklahoma": suggest "At its peak in 1979, the Dunkirk facility employed about 1,300 people. Indiana Glass also had a plant in Sapulpa, Oklahoma" to avoid the implication that the Sapulpa plant only operated around 1979.

  Made change. TwoScars (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• "In October, the company announced that it would buy back two million shares of its stock by June 2008": why is this relevant to this article?

  At least one author blames the sale on the hedge fund activists who wanted to make money on stock buybacks. However, I changed the last paragraph completely to mostly focus on the sale. TwoScars (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Fixes look good; passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

GA category?

TwoScars, I see you had this listed under "Computing and engineering". I think it probably should be here instead, under "Businesses and organizations". I wouldn't do anything until Legobot comes through in a day or so and updates the GA oldid, but once that's done, if you think it should be moved, go ahead, and change the topic here in the GA template. If you move it before Legobot is finished with it the bot might throw a fit -- it's sensitive to things being just the way it expects. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: No problem moving it to Businesses and organizations. Glass companies are somewhat odd. Fostoria Glass Company is in Art and architecture because of its products, while Hartford City Glass Company is in Social sciences and society because of its influence on the community. Indiana Glass Company has some info on the glassmaking process and an image showing glassmaking machinery from a patent, so I guessed that engineering might be appropriate. No problem using Businesses and organizations, and I will probably use that category for future glass company articles. Thanks for all your help. TwoScars (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Spotchecks

TwoScars, I realized after I promoted this article to GA that I should have done spotchecks on the sourcing. I've now done some and came up with one issue:

• FN 37 cites "Tank furnaces were essentially large brick pot furnaces with multiple workstations. A tank furnace is more efficient than a pot furnace, but more costly to build." I may be missing it but I don't see anything in the source about cost relative to pot furnaces.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie:, Thanks for your continued interest in the glass industry! That is one of those things that is obvious to someone from the industry, but maybe not so much for others. To solve the problem, I moved footnote 37 up one sentence, and added a new citation to the last sentence (A tank furnace is more efficient than a pot furnace, but more costly to build.) The additional source, a magazine article, says (in the magazine at the bottom of page 56): "The tank, which constitutes about 49 per cent of the total number of active furnaces, has proven to be superior in economy, regularity and uniformity of working and durability. The first cost, however, of the tank is far more costly than that of the pot furnace." Thanks TwoScars (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it -- yes, I guessed it would be obvious to you, but it wasn't to me! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)