Talk:Shinola (retail company)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Discussions from the old archive pages, 2012, 2013 and 2014, about the shoe polish company (defunct), may be found at Talk:Shinola/Archive 1. The first two sections on this page are from the old 2015 archive.

Infobox needed

'nuf said. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Corporate press release?

Is it just me, or does this article now read as basically one big product catalog for the new Shinola brand? Hzoi (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Ironic that the phrase "doesn't know sh*t from Shinola" supports allegations that Shinola products aren't all that good for the price. 73.18.249.235 (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Article was not written by the company's PR department. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC) 20:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

In popular culture section

Hi 7&6=thirteen! While trying to improve the article, I noticed that the refernces mentioned in that section are all dated prior to 2011--before the topic of this article even existed. Additionally, they all make reference to the original shoe polish company. So, I thought they would be more apropos in the article on that company. However, I noticed your reverted my edits. With this information in mind, would you perhaps consider reverting your edits, or making an arugment as to how these references relate to a company that did not yet exist?--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I am sure what you say is true. Since I added much of that material here, I agree as to the dates.

However, I think that your new article should be Merged into this article. If they are to coexist, then their should be appropriate links in both of them.

I don't know how much "shit and Shinola" articles we really need. Understand, I am a WP:Inclusionist, so I am slow to WP:PROD. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It is part of the brand history. Without the boot was and the phrase, the current company and its name surely would not exist in the present form. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The brand history is covered in the article extensively. However, you haven't addressed how the "In popular culture" bullet section relates to the article's topic since every single incident in the article occurred before this business was even conceived, must less existed. I'm curious to know how an argument could possibly be made.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 13 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

First title: moved to Shinola Detroit – second title: not moved. See general agreement to rename this page as well as to not move the dab page. Since adequate notice was given at Talk:Shinola (shoe polish), its subject page will be moved to the base name, Shinola. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Painius  ^put'r there  23:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

---

• Shinola → Shinola (retail brand)
• Shinola (disambiguation) → Shinola

– Seems vaguely WP:PROMO-ish to have this as the primary topic. I don't see how a recent luxury-goods brand could have more "enduring notability and educational value" than the historic brand of shoe polish, which in addition to inspiring the phrase know shit from Shinola, is also the origin of the modern brand's name. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 16:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• As noted below, this article was originally about the shoe polish, and has apparently been stealthily converted to an entirely different article over the last several years. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I would characterize "320 intermediate revisions by 95 users" over 5 years as stealthy. Station1 (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
    • "Creeping and insidious", then, like an invasive weed. In any case, the original article was gradually filled up with more info about the modern brand until the topic was changed outright in 2015; the present article was more or less in place by then. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
      • The essence and strength of Wikipedia is the gradual improvement of articles by large numbers of independent editors. It never works perfectly, but it does work overall, and I think it worked well in this case. Station1 (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and instead move Shinola → Shinola Detroit and Shinola (shoe polish) to primary - So many (all?) of the items on the disambiguation page take their name from the shoe polish (or the related idiom), and that demonstrates that it is the proper primary topic due to long-term significance. Google Ngram] shows that general use of the term arose directly as a result of the shoe polish company founding (1907). Since we're talking about two companies - the original and the new one - we need some additional disambiguation. Shinola (Detroit company) might be another option. -- Netoholic @ 17:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd also support this move. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, but possibly merge. Pageviews indicate most WP readers are looking for this article, even if we were to assume that every single view of Shinola (shoe polish) came through the hatnote. And, although it's a matter of opinion, I'm not sure old shoe polish is of more educational value than modern watches. If that's not clear cut, we should not force the majority of readers to a dab page or article they are not looking for. In any case, the current company bought the old company name and also markets shoe polish. That could be enough of a connection to merge the much shorter shoe polish article into this one. Station1 (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • These are two distinct topics, a shoe polish made up until 1960... and a specialty goods store which started in 2011. To my dismay, I have to point out that the article currently at Shinola was originally only about the shoe polish up to about 2013. Since then, in what I can only describe as a complete usurpation of the topic, it has been transformed into an article about the 2011 Detroit company. I think this proves a merge won't work because every vestige of the original content has been removed and Shinola (shoe polish) had to be recreated from scratch in 2015. -- Netoholic @ 20:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
    • They are two distinct topics, but not totally unrelated. Each article references the other. It's not a clear case for a merger, just a possibility if we want more people to read more about the shoe polish. The shoe polish was the only topic before 2013, and so took the undisputed title, but things change and sometime between then and now the Detroit company became primary. This reminds me of discussions at Anne Hathaway. Shakespeare's wife was the primary topic for almost 400 years, but now more people expect and are interested in an article about someone else who came along. Station1 (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
      • No one is saying they are "totally unrelated", come on. Neither is anyone here saying "we want more people to read" about the polish - what we're here deciding is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC based on both usage and long-term significance. You say it "became primary" and what I see is that a article was fundamentally and incrementally changed from one topic to another. This is just as if we had an article on apple and people started including more and more references to a computer company in it, until after a couple years nothing was left of the original topic but a line or two. That's not "becoming primary" - that usurpation without discussion. The new company isn't so sought after as to dwarf all other topics, and yet the shoe polish clearly has the long-term significance (since even the new company pays homage to it as its namesake). -- Netoholic @ 21:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
        • I wasn't implying anyone said they were totally unrelated; I was just reiterating my original point that there is some relationship that might support a merger if you or others think that might be useful to readers. I'm not pushing for a merger. Usage clearly favors the modern company; it is significantly more than all other topics. Long-term significance is a matter of opinion, but, as I said, when it's not clear cut, usage should be the deciding factor because it's a disservice to force readers where we think they should go over where they demonstrably want to go. Station1 (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
          • Users won't be "forced" to one page or another. Search engines use context and keywords and largely ignore what our particular title is. The key with long-term significance is more like - if you had to cut one article or the other from the encyclopedia completely, which would go? We'd keep the article about the original shoe polish, its history, and its usage as an idiom in pop culture. It seem to me that the usurpation of this article has tainted the page views. I suspect most people just come here looking for a quick answer for what the word "Shinola" means in the idiom. From that perspective, we are severely misinforming them by presenting this 2011 company. We've made Wikipedia a pawn to their marketing and search engine optimization. -- Netoholic @ 21:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
            • It's absolutely true that article titles affect only a small portion of searchers, often under 5%. But in the case of Shinola, that could still be 10 people a day who would be forced elsewhere. As to what most people are looking for, statistics indicate most are looking for the current company, and I see no reason to suspect otherwise. The phrase today is simply not as popular as the company, but we can always add a few sentences about the phrase to take care of those readers if we don't merge articles (there's already a wiktionary link). Station1 (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
          • As Netoholic suggests, we don't know how many page visitors to Shinola are just looking for an explanation of the common phrase shit from Shinola, so page-view statistics probably aren't that helpful here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
            • If we examine how many visitors move on to the shoe polish article or dab page after visiting here, we can deduce that a minority might be looking for the phrase, but a majority are not. Station1 (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
              • We don't have data for specific instances of readers that "move on" from one page to another. You can't make that assumption. Its just as likely they don't move on because they believe they've gotten the answer from the current article. -- Netoholic @ 02:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
                • We do have data, and using that data is the precise opposite of making assumptions. We know approximately 219 people per day view Shinola, 77 view Shinola (shoe polish) and only 8 view Shinola (disambiguation). That means that at most 85 people, a minority, "move on". Of course, as you correctly pointed out above, most people get to the article they expect no matter what the title, so the real number of people who move on is probably much closer to 8 than 85, but estimating that would be an assumption. As to people who believe they have gotten the answer they want from Shinola, either they have, in which case there's no problem, or they haven't, in which case we can improve the article without changing the title. Station1 (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
                  • That makes no sense. Most visitors come here via search engines, which could land them on any of those 3 pages depending on context and keywords. They don't come here and "filter through" Shinola to other articles. The visitors might also be on any other article and be clicking links directly to one of those 3. I'm sorry, but there is no way you can make any conclusion like that. -- Netoholic @ 06:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
                    • We've already agreed that most visitors arrive via search engines and are unaffected by the title. Very few people "filter through" to other pages. That's the point. The large majority do wind up at the article they want. The article title makes little to no difference to the majority of searchers, mostly to those few who type "Shinola" directly into the search box and Enter. But objectively, most of those people want the modern company, based on pageviews and google results, and by that definition the modern company is the primary topic. That will not change no matter what we title each article. Station1 (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
                      • Page traffic is one tool to determine a primary topic, but is not the only (or necessarily most important) one, as in Apple vs. Apple Inc. Usage in independent, published sources is another tool. A GBooks search for Shinola shoe polish returns 3,430 results; Shinola Detroit 1,940 results, and Shinola watch 2,390 results. That seems awfully close for a supposedly clear primary topic, even assuming no overlap between the latter two. It's also some indication of the long-term significance of the shoe polish brand, which seems obvious given that the modern brand name is in fact derived from it. Add to that the fact that this page was originally about the shoe polish, and I'm not convinced that the modern brand should be primary. I doubt any readers will be WP:ASTONISHed to land at either the shoe polish or the DAB page. Frankly, I'm more concerned with keeping the encyclopedia from becoming an extension of the brand's marketing strategy; see WP:NOTADVERTISING. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
                        • Not Advertising is a valid concern but that's really about article content. I don't think changing the title from Shinola to Shinola Detroit makes any significant difference in that regard. Station1 (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support neither the shoe polish nor the homage watch brand are primary. There is no absolute subject here. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• The Shoe Polish came first, and created the framework, reputation and nomenclature in which the new organization exists. That latter is an appendix to the former, now existing in its own right. However that cuts... 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• I concur with Netoholic that the shoe polish should be primary. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Shoe polish to primary, per discussion and common name. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Shoe polish to primary as above. Clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support as proposed. The brand only receives 63% of the article traffic, despite being at the base name. That, combined with a number of mislinks I can see, suggests it is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. However, there's no evidence the shoe polish is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC either - it receives a fraction of traffic of this article. It's better to have the dab page at the base name.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• If this move is successful, could an admin please HISTMERGE at least the edits before this edit in 2013 (that began the creeping conversion of the article) or at most somewhere in 2015 or 2016 (when the new shoe polish article was broken out) with wherever the shoe polish article ends up? —  AjaxSmack  21:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to histmerge things except for attribution purposes; this would in fact break attribution for the the current article on the brand. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

​The comment below by User:Netoholic is the reason and its done pretty routinely (see here and here for similar cases). It would not break attribution for the current brand article since the part of the history to be merged does not include text on the current brand. —  AjaxSmack  01:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

This article takeover really puts a pit in my stomach, and it sucks that the history of one of our early articles (2005) is buried forever under a promo piece for a 2011 company. Wish we could throw WP:TNT on it. --Netoholic @ 20:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Relisting comment: At this point there is a consensus for moving, but it's not clear whether the base article should be Shinola (shoe polish) or Shinola (disambiguation). Bradv 16:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Shoe polish, and if you disagree you don't know sh, ah, never mind. The only other significant disambiguation listing is the company that honors the shoe polish. According to its page: "Founded in 2011, its name is a nod to the defunct Shinola shoe polish company that operated in the early- and mid-20th century". The primary should go to the primary, the shoe polish, per historical significance. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom. I'm still not entirely sure there's a clear primary topic, but at least most of us can agree that the retail brand isn't the primary topic. Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Having initially proposed to put the base title at Shinola (disambiguation), I'm more inclined at this point to put it at Shinola (shoe polish). To me long-term significance wins out over popularity, and usage by independent sources doesn't clearly favor one or the other. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post RM comment

All mainspace links to Shinola that are meant for Shinola Detroit have been fixed.  Painius  ^put'r there  19:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Criticism

The Criticism section begins: A blogger has derided Shinola for using cheap, easy-to-manufacture quartz movements, noting that the battery-powered movements utilized—manufactured by Ronda AG, an independently owned Swiss movement manufacturer[3]—are worth a mere $20.[18]

When I read the referenced article, it was actually a favorable blog piece about the product. The negative remark was in a comment to the blog post, under a fake name. Is this considered authoritative sourcing for a wikipedia quote?

Welchatquietplease (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)will welch

Agreed. I found better references.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality?

The Criticism section is longer than the primary article section! Is this neutral tone? TAPwiki (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

So?

Too many notes? What would you have us do?

Sources are part of this. WP:Verifiability. We are not here to censor or position it one way or the other. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit request to correct text

Hello. My name is John and I've created a Wikipedia account in an attempt to update the company's page by submitting requests here for others to review.

I've noticed the second paragraph of the History section has some incorrect text:

• Every Shinola product is technically assembled in the United States. However, many parts used in Shinola watches are manufactured in China and Thailand. These factories are owned by companies based in Switzerland

Based on the sources already used as citations and the additional one I've shared below, I propose the following changes (see bold):

• Every Shinola watch is technically assembled in the United States. However, many parts used in Shinola watches are manufactured in Europe, China and Thailand. Certain components factories are owned by companies based in Switzerland.

The citations focus on watches, not all Shinola products. This source confirms Europe is a watch manufacturing site.

I'm not editing the article directly because of my conflict of interest, so can someone please review the proposed changes and update the page on my behalf? Thank you! JS at Shinola (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit request to update text re: tagline

Hello again, I am back with another request for the History section. Currently, the end of the second paragraph has the following outdated text:

• Shinola's current tagline is "Where American is Made", and the company has actively utilized Detroit's reputation as a worldwide manufacturing hub in its marketing of the brand.

There's an entire section called "Made in America marketing". I propose removing this sentence to eliminate repetition, OR updating the text to the following:

• Shinola's tagline was "Where American is Made", but that was abandoned after the FTC requested changes in certain marketing and labeling practices. The company has actively utilized Detroit's reputation as a worldwide manufacturing hub in its marketing of the brand.

This source should help support this change. Does someone mind updating the page appropriately?

Thanks again! JS at Shinola (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit request to update history text

Hi again! I'd like to request a couple additional updates to the end of the History section:

1. The article says, "The company's headquarters and watch factory are housed within the College for Creative Studies (CCS) on the fifth floor of the Alfred A. Taubman Building in Detroit, a former automotive research lab."

• The company occupies the 4th and 5th floors. This Wired source supports the claim. I propose changing "fifth floor" to "fourth and fifth floors".

2. Also, the last paragraph says, "Most of the workers assembling watches are local Detroiters, and many of them come from the auto business. Since the company's founding in 2011, it has grown to over 400 people by 2014.

• "Auto business" is quite vague. I propose changing the text to the following: "Most of the workers assembling watches are local Detroiters, and some come from automotive manufacturing."
• I propose changing "2014" to "2021" per this source.

Thanks again for reviewing and updating on my behalf! JS at Shinola (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Gilbert

@Heartmusic678: Thanks for reviewing the above requests. I'd like to submit a request to remove this text at the end of the Gentrification controversy section:

This concept is not new to the city, however, with businessmen like Dan Gilbert also coming into the city with the intent to "revitalize" the once great city, but also receiving criticism from the residents of Detroit that argue the city was great without them.

Dan Gilbert's massive real estate holdings in Detroit and his businesses, including Quicken Loans, really have nothing to do with the criticism Moy and Modrak aim at Shinola. I hope editors will agree this content is not appropriate for the Shinola page.

Can someone please update the page on my behalf? Thanks again for reviewing, JS at Shinola (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. The content is unsourced, so I have no problem removing it.

Jewelry and eyewear subsection for Products

Currently, the Products section is missing information about jewelry and eyewear. I propose adding the following "Jewelry and eyewear" subsection:

Shinola launched a jewelry line in 2016, with initial pieces designed by New York City designer Pamela Love. In 2021, eyewear was added to the product line with the launch of three styles: the Rambler, the Bixly, and the Mackinac.

 Done.

References

Thanks for updating the article appropriately, JS at Shinola (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Shinola Hotel

The Products section is currently missing mention of Shinola Hotel. I propose the following "Shinola Hotel" subsection:

Shinola, in partnership with a Detroit real estate company, opened a 129-room, eight-story boutique hotel as part of a multimillion-dollar development project in January 2019. Located on Detroit's Woodward Avenue, the hotel occupies five buildings. It also has a restaurant called San Morello and a retail store. In 2021, Shinola Hotel provided lodging for the launch of the "Decked out Detroit" initiative, an effort to highlight local activities and businesses.

 Done.

References

Like before, I'm hoping editors can review and update the article on my behalf. Thanks again! JS at Shinola (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Shinola Pet

Shinola Pet is defunct. To bring the article more to up to date, I propose removing the "Shinola Pet" section, or at least updating the tense (was a collection; supported the Michigan Humane Society; were produced in partnership). I don't think this is a controversial suggestion but I'll let editors decide what's best and update the page appropriately. Thanks again for reviewing! JS at Shinola (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done.

Partnerships

My final request for today is adding mention of a couple recent partnerships with notable companies. I propose adding the following text, either as a new section called "Partnerships" or within one of the existing sections ("History" or "Products"):

In 2021, Shinola partnered with Crate and Barrel to create a 115-piece furniture line and with the Ford Motor Company to create a concept for the Lincoln Aviator at the Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance.

 Done. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Thank you for reviewing and updating on my behalf. JS at Shinola (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Community involvement

@Heartmusic678: Thanks (again!) for reviewing the above requests. I have a few more improvements in mind, if you're available.

Currently, the Community involvement section has a single sentence about the dog park. I propose a slight expansion of the section to include mention of select community organizations receiving proceeds from Shinola products. I've drafted the following content for consideration, based on Wikipedia appropriate sourcing:

In 2014, Shinola partnered with Midtown Detroit, Inc., to open an off-leash dog park in Detroit. Following the legalization of recreational marijuana in Michigan, Shinola released the "Twenty After Four" watch line in partnership with rapper Common and actor Woody Harrelson in 2020. Proceeds from the sale, just over $176,000, were split between two criminal justice charities: the Anti-Recidivism Coalition and Cabrini Green Legal Aide.

In 2021, Shinola produced 1,969 Pride watches to commemorate the 1969 Stonewall riots. The company donated $120,000 of the proceeds to the LGBT+ nonprofits SAGE Metro Detroit and the Ruth Ellis Center. Also in 2021, the company launched the Most Likely to Succeed watch line, with $40,000 in proceeds going to Money Matters for Youth, a nonprofit that teaches children financial literacy.

Thanks again for reviewing! JS at Shinola (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done.

References

Bicycles

Currently, the Bicycles section says, "The chromoly steel frames and forks are made by Richard Schwinn's Waterford Precision Cycles in Waterford, Wisconsin, with complete assembly taking place at Shinola's flagship retail store at 441 W. Canfield Street in Detroit."

I propose removing "with complete assembly taking place at Shinola's flagship retail store at 441 W. Canfield Street in Detroit" because assembly is not currently taking place at the flagship store due to supply constraints. Additionally, seems like unnecessary detail to include the exact address.

My goal here is to update the text, which is accurate if the last part of the sentence is removed. Thanks! JS at Shinola (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done

Section order

I'd like to make a suggestion regarding the article's structure.

Currently the page has sections ordered History, Criticism, Products, etc. The Criticism section is about specific products and marketing, but the information is presented before readers have learned about the company's products. I propose changing the section order to History, Products, Criticism, etc.

While I take issue with some of the content within the Criticism, for now I am simply seeking to change the article framework for improved flow and readability.

I understand editors will have the final say here. Thanks for your consideration, JS at Shinola (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. I moved the section lower on the page. It falls before the Community involvement section. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Journals

Currently, the article's Journals section says, "Shinola makes journals in partnership with Edwards Brothers Malloy, an Ann Arbor, Michigan-based company. The journals come with paper, soft linen or hard linen covers, with a price point of US$12-$20 for a linen covered journal."

This is inaccurate and outdated. Shinola has sold but did not make journals. Additionally, Ref. #50 does not work and Edwards Brothers Malloy has closed.

I propose updating the section to say: "Shinola sold journals with soft linen and hard linen in partnership with Ann Arbor, Michigan-based Edwards Brothers Malloy, prior to the printer's closure in 2018." This source confirms the closure. Thanks again! JS at Shinola (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done.

Hello @JS at Shinola: Thanks for your message. Your requests have been answered. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

History text

@Heartmusic678: Thank you once again for assisting with this series of edit requests. I have a few more suggestions for improving this article, if you're available.

Currently, the "History" section says, "The modern company was founded in 2011 by Tom Kartsotis under his investment company, Bedrock Manufacturing (now Bedrock Brands)." To disambiguate the polish brand and the subject more clearly, I propose changing the text to "The Detroit-based retail company was founded in 2011 by Tom Kartsotis under his investment company, Bedrock." You'll also see I've trimmed "Bedrock Manufacturing (now Bedrock Brands)" to simply "Bedrock", since there seems to be a bit of confusion re: Bedrock Manufacturing, Bedrock Brands, and Bedrock Group LP. Also, "Bedrock" is used throughout the article.  Done

Thanks for reviewing, JS at Shinola (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Leather

I've identified a couple issues with the "Leather" section, which currently says, "In 2014, Shinola opened its own leather factory in Detroit, and has begun manufacturing leather watch straps under the leadership of Braloba, a Swiss-based, family-owned company run by Thomas Schori. The leather factory is equipped with custom-designed machines produced by Galli S.P.A. The company will also begin producing small leather goods and accessories in-house."

The source focuses on the leather factory and watch straps, but says Shinola "will expand to small leather goods and eventually handbags". There seems to be some forecasting here. Therefore, I propose removing the following third sentence: "The company will also begin producing small leather goods and accessories in-house." One more minor request: In the last paragraph, I propose changing "come from Hadley Roma..." to "have been sourced from Hadley Roma..." for clarity.  Done.

Thanks again for reviewing, JS at Shinola (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Retail locations

Currently, the list of flagship stores in the "Retail locations" section ends with Cleveland. Columbus, Denver, Waikiki, and King of Prussia are missing.

Additionally, the current Ann Arbor claim is unsourced. Therefore, I propose moving mention of Ann Arbor and expanding the list of cities with the following:

"... Columbus, Denver, Waikiki, Ann Arbor, and King of Prussia."  Done.

References

Also, I propose removing the sentence "A Willys Detroit, a sister store to Shinola, is a home for distinctive American brands" because Willys Detroit has closed.  Done.

Thank you! JS at Shinola (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Quartz movements

I'd like to address the "Quartz movements" section. Currently, the opening sentence reads, "Shinola has faced criticism for producing mostly quartz watches instead of mechanical or automatic self-winding movements found in nearly all higher-end luxury watches, which require substantially more skill to produce." Neither of the citations used in this section are critical of the company; the sources simply describe the types of movements and how the watches are made.

I also take issue with the text "crediting the delay to the time it took their Swiss suppliers to develop one". The Swiss supplier did not develop the watch. I propose changing "develop one" to "finish making the mechanical movement". Additionally, I propose adding the following brief and neutral update, per this source: In May 2021, Shinola released its first automatic chronograph, the Canfield Speedway. I propose updating this section to the following:

Shinola began by producing watches with quartz analog movements. In November 2017, the company unveiled its first mechanical watch, called the Lake Erie Monster, in response to public demand, attributing the delay to the time it took their Swiss suppliers to finish making the mechanical movement. In May 2021, Shinola released its first automatic chronograph, the Canfield Speedway.

References

Finally, since this section is really just describing watches and not actual criticism of the company, can this content be moved from the "Criticism" section to the "Watches" subsection? Thanks again for reviewing and updating the article on my behalf. JS at Shinola (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done with edits. I included the first sentence at the beginning of the Watches section and the other content at the end of the section to keep everything in chronological order. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Criticism

@Heartmusic678: I want to thank you once again for taking time to review these requests and update the article.

I'd like to start addressing some issues with the "Criticism" section:

• The section leads with the opinion of John Moy, a brand consultant and fashion writer, sharing his personal thoughts in a piece published by the website Four Pins. I'm not seeing evidence that the Complex Networks channel is a journalistic publication with strong vetting standards.
  • The section gives a lot of space to this (non-notable) person's opinion and has statements like "On the other hand, many commentators to this article consider this criticism unfair, given that the company has created American manufacturing jobs." Commentators to this article? I'm not even sure what this means.

• The section's third paragraph says, "In 2014, men's style site compared Shinola to a 'trust fund kid that decided one day he wanted to start a company and had his dad buy him all the cool stuff.'" The sentence is unsourced, but I see the quote is also taken from the Four Pins piece.

Since this content is based on a non-notable individual's opinion published in a non-notable publication, I propose removing the section's first paragraph as well as the "trust fund kid" sentence in the third paragraph. Thank you for reviewing, JS at Shinola (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @JS at Shinola: I cannot remove this content in good faith, because Four Pins is affiliated with Complex/Complex Networks which is a reliable source. If you have suggestions for how to revise the current content, I will be happy to review it. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC) After further review, I did remove the unsourced sentence beginning with On the other hand... It could be referring to comments readers made about the article, which are not on the current article page. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Second paragraph

Related to above, I'd also like to point out issues with the "Criticism" section's third paragraph, which has no citations (but refers to Reference Number 66: "Shinola Takes Its 'Detroit Cool' Message on the Road").

• First of all, the section leads with "Alex Williams in the New York Times criticized Shinola's use of "Detroit" as a marketing tool". The New York Times piece was not a criticism in the least. It had an appropriate level of skepticism, but I don't think anyone reading the article would see it as criticism. Alex Williams writes about the marketing strength of Shinola's Detroit connection. There are references in this piece about the criticism Shinola has taken, but this does not appear to be the personal opinion of Alex Williams.
• The paragraph says "... but a 'job-creating vehicle' and because of Detroit's association with manufacturing". This isn't criticism or controversial.
• The next sentences read, "His job argument is a driving argument in support of the company. In an interview with the New York Times, Carlos Quirarte, the cultural director, even states...". This is poorly written. The following is more accurate: "In an interview with Williams for his New York Times piece, Carlos Quirarte, Shinola's former cultural director, asks...".

In summary, the section's currently-unsourced second paragraph is problematic for multiple reasons. Someone has bloated this section with text which is not representative of sourcing. I'm hoping someone can remove the text, or at least trim and re-write in a neutral manner. I have other issues with this section, but I will pause for now and not submit too many changes at once. Thanks again for reviewing. JS at Shinola (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @JS at Shinola: the unsourced second paragraph has been removed. Thank you, Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Text revisions

@Heartmusic678: Thanks for your help here. Since you've offered to review proposed revisions to the current text, I'd like to share a few thoughts:

• Currently, the "Criticism" section says, "Moreover, the company has invested intensely in its employees, flying in watchmakers from Switzerland to train its employees." I propose expanding the text to say, "That said, the company has invested intensely in its Detroit-based employees, flying in watchmakers from Switzerland to train them, paying significantly above minimum wage and retaining its workforce even as the broader manufacturing sector is criticized for outsourcing.", per the Chicago Tribune. This source says Shinola offers training and pays "more than $3 an hour more than the 'typical minimum wage'..."

• Also, the article does not offer counterbalance to Moy's position. Here we could add, "Michigan State University economist Lisa D. Cook said that operations like Shinola's factory in the city helps fill the void as Detroit's car makers downsize. She said, "We can expect that many different types of novelty products might be produced, ones that require high skills like Shinola watches, and these goods, and goods like them, represent that kind of a comeback."  Done

• The second paragraph starts with "This marketing technique and Kartsotis's background have brought much criticism to the company." I suggest changing to "Kartsotis's marketing techniques and background have brought much attention to the company." As I mentioned above, the sentence starting "In 2014, men's style site..." does not have a citation but refers to the Four Pins piece. The next sentence mentioning Tribeca is about Kartsotis, not criticism of the company.  Done

• Finally, there's the paragraph and quote re: Rebekah Modrak. A more neutral sentence ahead of the quote could be, "Professor Rebekah Modrak in her article "Bougie Crap", for Infinite Mile Detroit, writes:" The quote itself has inline citations which are taken from Modrak's article. Is it common for Wikipedia entries to include the sources used to support someone's opinion as inline citations? I would also suggest trimming or removing this text, which is hyperbolic and not specifically about Shinola. (Bedrock and Ford are mentioned, and Modrak seems frustrated with several wider societal issues than one company or its products, including materialism and marketing practices in the market as a whole.) Not done – please clarify

Hi @JS at Shinola: Modrak's issue is with gentrification, and in her argument that bougie crap signifies gentrification, Shinola and its products do appear to be the focus of her argument. This section seems important and will add to the overall neutrality of the page, so I would not recommend deleting it. What are your suggestions for trimming it, as the formatting is not an issue, but it does seem rather long? Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Thanks for revisiting this text with me. I understand you and other editors will decide what the article says, but I feel the need to identify where bias seems to have snuck in and where text is not exactly representative of sourcing. You'll notice the "Criticism" section's next paragraph about the FTC is also problematic and poorly sourced, but I'll outline issues in a subsequent request. Thanks again for your time, JS at Shinola (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Heartmusic678: Thanks again for helping here. I would suggest trimming the text down to what's specifically about Shinola:

Bedrock Manufacturing notoriously attached their Shinola venture to Detroit after test studies showed that consumers would pay three times as much for a product associated with the tenacity of a bankrupt city... participants in the CCS/Shingle union enact the racial and class divide at play in the gentrification of a Detroit that's "rising from the ashes."

 Done

Also, are there any ways the text about Kartsotis can be more balanced? This article has criticism but does not credit him for any of his successes as a self-made entrepreneur. I understand this article should stay focused on the company and not Kartsotis, but adding only negative coverage does not seem fair when sources like this, this and this offer something more positive to say about him. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look. I will also review the very poorly sourced FTC paragraph to suggest a possible solution. Thanks again! JS at Shinola (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @JS at Shinola: The quote was trimmed down, and to answer your question about Kartsotis, you already answered it. The best way to approach WP:NPOV for this page is to report on the company itself. The controversies the company has faced are balanced out by sections such as Community involvement, or a positive response to controversy. So if there is any relevant company coverage to be added to the page, I or another editor will address it. Thanks, Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)