Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rogers Locomotive and Machine Works/archive1

Rogers Locomotive and Machine Works[edit]

self nom. This article has been through peer review where the only comments related to bold and link formatting. I've tried to include enough information on the company's history to give a thorough overview. slambo 13:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object 1) Too much bold text in the lead 2) Metric equivalents absent. 3) "Southern Museum of Civil War and Locomotive History" An inline external link should not be linked that way in the text. 4)Kennesaw, GA --> Please expand GA. 4) =Notes= should be a heading, not a subheading. 5) Matthias W. Baldwin and William Norris etc. who were they? Prefix the name with their occupation. 6) ...including nearly every railroad... Needs to be rephrased. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. I've addressed the objections as follows:
1) Unbolded all but the first mention of the company name, which is in the first sentence.

2) Added metric conversions where appropriate using Google's unit converter.

3) Removed inline external link.

first 4) Expanded "GA" to "Georgia".

second 4) Promoted "Notes" header to a level 2 header, the same level as "References".

5) Noted the significance of Baldwin and Norris as "fellow locomotive builders" and noted the companies each founded.

Your last objection is the only one that I'm not sure about. I'm open to suggestions for alternate wording. slambo 18:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's an attempt at rewording that sentence. Please review the changes. Thanks. slambo 19:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
including nearly every railroad reads more like a weasel term. I won't be free to review it till saturday.) I'll edit the text then if I'm not satisfied.) One more thing: those footnotes are pretty useless, it conveys no real information. Would you consider using inotes instead? I'll withdraw my objection for time being. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Moshein & Rothfus reference cited in the article includes a complete build list for all of the company's products, so exact numbers are available on what the company actually built, but I haven't seen a reference that lists every railroad that existed during that time. Yeah, it sounds a little weasely, but that's also how (IIRC) White described Rogers' industry penetration (I'll verify which reference I saw it in again tonight). On the footnotes, I used notation that I'd seen in other journals that mention the original references' authors and a page number (which is why it was originally a subheading of References). I thought that listing them immediately after the complete citations would be enough, but since it was unclear to you, it's likely unclear to others as well. I'll look through my MLA handbook for further suggestions on footnote citations; I was hoping to avoid reprinting the entire reference citation in the note. I'll also take a look at inote tonight. slambo 19:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've taken some time to review inote and my MLA guide. The way I've presented the notes in this article is MLA style (in my 1999 copy, it's on page 305) listing the last name and enough information to identify the work being cited with the specifics for the note such as the page number where the information appears; the only real difference is that my first citation to each reference is in the References section immediately above the note texts rather than in the first note text. I've reviewed inote, but I'd rather not make this information invisible. So, my conclusion on the notes is to leave them as they are. slambo 10:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rather a lot of broken links. Tony 13:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm filling in data to clear out the red links as I find the information. slambo 14:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After filling in a couple more red links, I did a quick count. There are 7 unique red links in the article text, four unique red links in the preservation table, and four in the footer navigation template. Considering the large number of blue links throughout the article (I didn't count the blue links yet), I don't think this number is excessive. If you've got information to fill in behind any of the other red links, I would welcome your input into those articles. slambo 16:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:
I've copyedited and simplified the lead, please see if it reads better.
use of dashes and special symbols are not recommended in the MoS.
Some areas need a copyedit.
- Swinburne left Rogers, John Cooke, who later went on to form Danforth, Cooke & Company, also worked at the Rogers plan ordering of events.
- Please use   between a unit and a number. 39 km/hr , 24 miles etc.
- Hughes led the company until his own death in 1900. A year later, Jacob Rogers closed the Rogers Locomotive Company plant. In 1901, the year that Jacob Rogers died and the same year that the American Locomotive Company (ALCO) Check the flow & why did it close down?
Unfortunately for Rogers, does the article empathize with Rogers?
ALCO and Baldwin were too good at building --> too good? a more encyclopedic tone? Instead of wikifying, please specify the company.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 19:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, didn't see the comments mentioned in all the other updates on my watch list. I'm not sure if I'd say the lead was better, but a couple of ambiguities in the wording are now resolved. On the other comments...

I've reworded Cooke's departure from Rogers into its own sentence at the end of the paragraph: "After Swinburne left Rogers, John Cooke also worked at the Rogers plant. Like Swinburne, Cooke later went on to form his own locomotive manufacturing firm, Danforth, Cooke & Company,"
I've added   where appropriate when stating measurements (this is a habit I'm trying to get into for my other editing).
As to why the company was closed in 1900, my references don't give a reason. I suspect that it may have been solely to avoid absorption into ALCO, and there's a passing reference to that in my resources, but nothing definite. Moshein and Rothfus state: "In December 1900... Jacob Rogers closedthe works. After six months of rumors about new ownership, a notice appeared in the May 17, 1901, issue of Railroad Gazette announcing that the plant had been sold and would reopen as the Rogers Locomotive Works (RLW) with Reuben Wells as plant superintendent...." I don't have access right now to that issue of Railroad Gazette, but I'd be interested in seeing it.
I've reworded the "Unfortunately..." phrase as "But Rogers was at a competitive disadvantage."
The sentence is now a little long, but I've reworded the "too good" sentence to use "... held too much of a lead in manufacturing and selling ..."

I think that's all for now. slambo 17:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks good. JYolkowski // talk 01:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Object Some paragraphs in "1831 to 1856: Thomas Rogers era" too short Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify that? Which ones specifically? Do you have any suggestions for improvement? The shortest that I see is the last paragraph which still wraps around to three lines on my 1024x768 screen; other than that, the shortest that I see is still three sentences that wrap to at least three lines. AdThanksVance. slambo 14:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Pamri • Talk 07:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]