Talk:The Churchill Machine Tool Company

John L. Churchill & Co Ltd

I have a metal tool box with an embossed alloy logo with the stylized letters "J.L.C" on a red background, around this logo its says; "JOHN L. CHURCHILL & CO LTD. WALNUT TREE WALK. LONDON. SE11 TEL. 3063" It looks pre-war is this the same company?

Hi, I'm the person who did most of the research for this article. I don't think there is a connection between this Churchill and yours. I also can't find a mention of your company in the London Gazette or at Companies House either (you can find links to the websites for those in the Refs section of this article). There may be a connection to V. L. Churchill, of that parish but I have no proof of that (eg: a registered company name change). See:

• V. L. Churchill
• ditto
• Grace's Guide

Your best bet would be either to see if the people at our Reference Desk can take this any further, mentioning that you have asked here, or to try searching through old trade directories for the Lambeth area. For the latter, there are some online here. - Sitush (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

G7 deletion

Appears notable - discussing with user --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Churchill Machine Tool Company has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, and no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on Churchill Machine Tool Company.Weiterbewegung (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There's enough there to get it through A7, and there's enough edits by other users to negate G7. If you want it deleted, it needs to go to AfD. GedUK  17:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Like I already said, but now there isn't even a picture to show people what Churchill's made.Weiterbewegung (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That'll be because you had it deleted. Hopefully someone will find another one. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Pretty obtuse observation. If I can actually do that (have things deleted) then what’s going on here? Weiterbewegung (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Corporate history

The corporate history is extremely tangled, as befits the British engineering industry. Website forums involving engineers and motorcyclists often state that CMT Co went into receivership in 1960/61 and that BSA, although wanting to buy both the lathes and the grinding divisions from the receiver, were in fact only able to purchase the former. This would go a long way to explaining why there is still a company trading in precision grinding equipment from an address in Altrincham using the name Churchill Machine Tool Co Ltd and why that company claims to have been doing so for over 100 years. Of course, it could be an advertising puff on their part but if you bear in mind that they have records for machines as far back as 1943 and still offer repair services for those machines, then it seems more likely that the forum discussions are correct.

If anyone has access to Companies House records then it really would help to clarify the situation. The lathes business operated from Yorkshire and the north-east, whilst the grinding business was operating from Manchester.

This is a notable company for many engineers, in the context of WP notability: a producer of innovative, well-constructed and enduring machinery that was much respected and trusted, and which can still be found operating in many workshops today. Sitush (talk) 09:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Matrix-Churchill Machine Tool Company

Is this company linked in any way to the infamous Matrix-Churchill Machine Tool Company of Coventry? Churchill Machine Tools (Coventry) Ltd was liquidated in December 1974. Meanwhile TMG Engineering Ltd. acquired TI Machine Tools of Coventry in 1987 and soon afterwards renamed it Matrix Churchill Machine Tool Company Ltd. Did they aquire the Churchill name from the liquidated company? --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a part of my point, both in my edits to the entry and in my Talk contribution above. The company name has a tortuous history, much of it originating in a boardroom split in the 1930s and then the *usual* dodgy UK engineering/automotive company amalgamations of the 60s and 70s. I do not have access (ie: funding) to check the Company's House records but therein lies the definitive answer. A major part of the problem with this article could be resolved if someone could provide the (convoluted) legal history: there were without doubt numerous entities using the Churchill name at various times and the relationship between them needs clearing up. A particularly big contention is the anecdotal evidence that BSA acquired only the lathe manufacturing part of the business, which originated in the 1930s split, despite wanting to buy the entire company: the point here being that ultimately TI acquired the lathes element but the present-day company, which concentrates on grinding, would not have any connection to the Matrix issue. The article actually has the potential at present to be libelling by implication the current company trading from Manchester unless these issues can be resolved. I'll try contacting the current corporate nameholder in the next couple of days. I am happy to do more research on this subject because I feel that it is notable despite the recent AfD. Sitush (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've now taken the story as far as I can regarding the connection with Matrix, or indeed anything else. Someone else may be able to elucidate further, and I've left a few bits hanging because I do not have the finances to pursue further (eg: obtaining archived Companies House records for Churchill-Denham, a copy of either of the self-published company histories). I'm not sure where the TMG Engineering reference fits in, sorry, but there is certainly an implication that if TMG had an involvement then it did so via a buy-out in liquidation. The former names of Matrix Churchill available from Companies House via their free Webcheck service make no mention of TMG & so I would presume that if there is any link then it was bought-out and then maintained its corporate individuality. Perhaps a check on the Companies House/London Gazette records for subsequent happenings with TMG would fill in the gaps, if any? Sitush (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of LTC Rolt as source

I have used LTC Rolt as a source in this entry but there is a potential problem with something that he says. The Hiram Maxim pages currently queries whether Maxim arrived in the UK in 1881, twenty years after Rolt says Churchill was importing machinery to the UK for Maxim's development of his gun. Furthermore, I am fairly sure that the Maxim gun was not in production until the late 1880s. Clearly, if true, these points make something of a nonsense of Rolt's assertions. However, he is generally a reliable source and so until proven otherwise I have chosen merely to emphasise strongly that the precis of Charles Churchill's early work in the UK is based on the opinion of Rolt and no additional party. Hope this is ok. Sitush (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Gatling gun factory reference that I have recently added to this WP entry makes me wonder if Rolt has perhaps got his guns mixed up. According to the Gatling Gun WP entry, the Maxim was not developed until 1884 whereas the Gatling was around in 1862, which chronologically would make more sense vis-a-vis Chas Churchill's journey to England. I have no answer to this and am just throwing a thought out. My suspicion is that the answer died with Rolt but if someone knows of a source for his statement then please do tell. Sitush (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I am now satisfied that Rolt got it wrong and have amended the WP article accordingly. Whether he got it wrong because he was a historian-for-hire on that particular commission (and so did not really check things out) or because his sources were themselves misleading is beyond me. But he was wrong. I'm sure of it, and think it likely that the guns were indeed mixed up. Sitush (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Maginness

I think that there may soon be justification for moving much of the bio info concerning Maginness into its own entry. Note to self, bearing in mind Matrix-Churchill events after his death: "Sir Greville Maginness, who leads the Engineering and Allied Employers' National Federation and is chairman of Churchill Machine Company, has called for the "complete abolition of the embargo list, leaving the export of warlike goods to be embargoed by existing licensing procedure." - http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1958/jun/13/east-west-trade Sitush (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Date of residence/trading

I'm still trying to find a source for the 1865 start-up in business here, which existed on the article prior to my involvement in editing it. Using the London Gazette it is possible to track references to Churchill (via his address and a common collaborator) which suggest that either he was trading here while still moving between New York and London or that the 1865 date is in fact slightly out.

Here's what I put in the main body of the article and then removed while I check further, cross-referencing addresses where possible:

In March 1866 there is a successful application for "improvements in lathe chucks" under the same Act and referring to a Charles Churchill at that time listed as being in New York; the same person appears in 1865 with reference to improvements in oil feeders and cans.;

I do not think that this constitutes original research IF I can prove the link via a commonality of published addresses. Thoughts, anyone? Sitush (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

My bad. The 1865 reference is already cited (Rolt). Sitush (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

References

Lloyd-Jones & Lewis - someone check the refs please

A user keeps inserting requests for page numbers, claiming that the three citations referring to page 116 of the above noted book are not in fact all on that page.

Driving me daft because it is so counter-productive. Short of actually plagiarising the thing, or the relevant user actually becoming less obtuse and telling me which one(s) don't relate, I don't know what I can do. Please could someone restore my sanity and check. The Google books link is http://books.google.com/books?id=k6FIMyG4SmgC&lpg=PP1&ots=nYt1h3MJWi&dq=Alfred%20Herbert%20Ltd%20and%20the%20British%20machine%20tool%20industry%2C%201887-1983.&pg=PA116#v=onepage&q=churchill&f=false Sitush (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

OK then. there are three endnotes that point to page 116 of LLoyd-Jones and Lewis 'Alfred Herbert'. The first one is part-way through the first sentence; The Churchill Machine Tool Company was the manufacturing subsidiary[1] of Charles Churchill & Co Ltd that was founded by the New England-born[2] Charles Churchill (b. 1837 - d. 1916).[3] Page 116 is all about the 1930s, long after ols Charlie died. The other two endnotes are fairly OK. I am very familiar with this book, by the way. Weiterbewegung (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Phew! I'm not going mad. I think that you are misunderstanding WP citation system. Notes [2] and [3] refer to Rolt and Davenport-Hines, respectively (and only at the moment - it could change if other sources get added). You will see that note [1] has parts (a), (b) & (c), which all relate to page 116. Is it ideal? Possibly not if you come from a print environment, but everyone lives with it and it works well in a hypertexted environment, which is what WP is after all. Sitush (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, if what you mean is that note [1] is incorrectly cited then I'm afraid that you are wrong. Look at the sentence on p116 immediately following the Lloyd-Jones/Lewis footnote superscript 153. In any event, please can you stop reverting the thing until we sort it out here. Sitush (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, its you that decided to ignore AGF: I am perfectly well entitled to edit your work. May I restate that Page 116 is about the 1930s, not about the firm’s early developments? Also, Churchill features quite strongly and frequently in the work ‘Alfred Herbert’. I have no doubt that you intend to clean up the endnotes, but removing the ‘page number needed’ tag indicates that you have already done so (and you haven’t). Other editors, seeing the tag, may own a copy of the book and insert the correct page number. (I note that the Google book thingy always and misleadingly gives you page 116 when you search Churchill). Remember, there’s no private property on Wikipedia (don’t I know it). Please do not remove the page number needed tag for a fourth time. You may wish to ignore me, but you can’t. 18:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weiterbewegung (talk • contribs)

Page 116 indeed verfies that Churchill Machine Tool Company was the manufacturing subsidiary of Charles Churchill & Co Ltd. It is the correct page number. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it certainly does not. Weiterbewegung (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The text from that page: "From 1930 Gabriel had been influential, together with Arthur Chamberlain, the chariman of both Charles Churchill and the company's manufacturing subsidiary, the Churchill Machine Tool Co." is sufficent to verify that the Churchill Machine Tool Co. was the manufacturing subsidiary of Charles Churchill. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I was looking while this discussion was going on, p 85 says the same so I've inserted that as a ref. NtheP (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Pontificalibus and NtheP: constructive and, well, right now I can take pretty much anything for a quiet life. I hope that everyone is now satisfied. I'm thinking of walking away from this project. Sitush (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand – or rather I think I do but I hope I don’t. The idea is not “to verify that the Churchill Machine Tool Co. was the manufacturing subsidiary of Charles Churchill” but to direct researchers of the future towards other sources that may provide them with direction. For example, you looked for Churchill in a work on Herbert. Citation of sources is not merely providing supporting evidence.Weiterbewegung (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand much of what you say at any time recently, I'm afraid. However, if your concern is about whether the citation is accurate then we get into the entire Blochian area of historiography, at which level nothing gets done and we'll still be learning how to light a fire. I take the Newtonian approach of standing on the shoulders of giants etc. If it satisfies your mindset then treat the Notes & Refs in WP as a bibliography/suggested reading list rather than as verification ... and feel free to read all of every item quoted. Best wishes Sitush (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Weiterbewegung has it exactly wrong above, I fear. On Wikipedia the emphasis is entirely on verifiability. In fact it has been said that WP cares more about verifiablity than it does truth, and will happily publish verifiable untruths and delete unsupported truths! WP is definitely NOT in existence "to direct researchers of the future towards other sources". Thus a source which verifies that firm A was a subsidiary of firm B is very welcome and appropriate. As to what it is that Weiterbewegung thinks he understands but hopes he does not - until he enlightens us we must remain in ignorance. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Original research

I uncovered a bunch of trading addresses via old adverts/catalogues etc - all referenced. I should imagine that the Kelly's Directories publications are acceptable as a secondary source, as are newspapers/periodicals, but have I transgressed by citing info from the company's own ads & the catalogues held at the Museum of English Rural Life/National Archives? They are definitely a primary source but at first I thought it wouldn't matter because the facts used are, well, so blatantly factual and verifiable. With my historian's hat on I know that I'm right; with my more modern WP hat, and bearing in mind some recent WP:AN/I comments, I am not so sure.

Should I pull them? Seems a shame but ... Sitush (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Who decided to make the collection? That was an editorial decision wasn't it- that was the 'OR' - using part of the collection is a secondary decision- they stay. I am not troubled by a historians background so view the debate with no baggage- but until we stop the angels dancing on the pinhead- I would let that one ride. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Grace's Guide

Grace's Guide has various advertisements for Charles Churchill which I am reluctant to upload because there is no source & there may be copyright issues. However, at least [| one of them] contains the only evidence I have found of Churchill opening a branch in Leeds, and the caption also suggests a "latest date" at which this could have happened (1918). Is it acceptable to link to the Grace's Guide page as the source for the info? I actually think the ad is from the Mechanical World Year Book of either 1917, 1918 or 1919 but cannot be 100% sure. Sitush (talk) 06:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

For such basic info such as a location and date, I believe it would be okay to link to an advertisement such as that. It's not like you are inferring anything that is n't explicitly stated in the ad. Silverseren^C 14:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll be bold. I've seen some of the many discussions about verifiabilty of Graces/IMDB etc and am running scared, although I do agree. I'll leave the date out though, as there is no way that I can confirm this other than from the Grace's site. I did email them for sources but, no surprise, have had no response. It is quite worrying this sort of thing: there are a host of people doing genealogy stuff on the web claiming a Harry Lawson was chairman, and Harry Asbridge was owner, of Churchill Machine Tool Co around 1934 but it is a load of b*****ks based on a massively misinterpreted photo album belonging to deceased family members, Not my problem, but an example of the way that whispers become truths. Sitush (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to add to this thread except to say nice work by (apparently, as far as an outsider like me can tell) sifting the wheat from the chaff in terms of refs and reliability. Quite true about whispers. For all that people bash Wikipedia, at least we *try* to avoid whisper-down-the-alley—and that makes a huge difference versus not even trying, which is what plenty of the rest of the web does. — ¾-10 01:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Photos

Decent quality photographs are proving to be impossible to find. A friend who goes by the name "Asquith" on an engineering forum has scanned some in for me from Curtis Sparkes' Famous for a Century privately published book. They'll have to do unless and until something better comes along.Sitush (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

By now I've had a very quick read through of the article and I suspect that it lies somewhere between GA-level and FA-level; however, I will only be assessing it against WP:WIAGA, so at most it will gain GA from this review. Having said that, the way the article has been written in some places could in a "worst-case" provoke a claim of WP:OR so I will be suggesting changes to the presentation to minimise any risks of such an event.

I will now go through the article again in more detail and just pick up any problems. As per my choice, I will be leaving the WP:Lead until last. I may "correct" minor "problems" where it is less effort to do so, as apposed to listing them here and waiting for them to be done by the nominator (or another). Pyrotec (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• History -
  • Charles Churchill -

• 3rd paragraph: "... wire-braiding of crinoline frames; and he simultaneously ... ". I don't think he and later his means Rolt: its more likley to be Charles.

Comment - agreed, it is sloppy phrasing. I'll fix when you have completed your first detailed run-through. - Sitush (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Action - rephrased - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC) - Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• 4th paragraph: "A search of The London Gazette shows several announcements ....". I suggest that ""A search of" be removed (for reasons, see above).

Comment - agreed. The phrase simply is not necessary, regardless of potential OR issues. - Sitush (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Action - removed - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC) - Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• At GA, I'm willing to allow the following to stand, "as is": "Churchill's location is stated as being New York for the 1865 applications (Buckingham was at Westmoreland House, Walworth Common, Surrey); for those of 1867 and 1868 he was in Norwood, Surrey and states himself to be a merchant; still listing himself as a merchant, the 1869–70 applications show his summarised address as Darnley Crescent, Hackney, Middlesex; and therefter as a merchant at Wilson Street, Finsbury. Willis Churchill, Clark and Gee were all shown as being of New York City; Tiffany (a prolific patentor in the US) was of Bennington, Vermont; Miller was of West Meriden, Connecticut; and Beach of Newark, New Jersey". For FAC, its likely to need citations, which I assume are all in the table above it.

Comment - the information is indeed contained in the citations, but I'm not happy about the parenthetical comment relating to Tiffany and will remove it. - Sitush (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Action - removed the text I disliked - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC) - Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• The final paragraph might be WP:OR, but I don't have all the sources to check.

Comment - the very final part would, I suspect, fail on the grounds of synthesis but that which precedes is documented directly in the cited sources. I am happy to remove: "It is something of an aside, but worth pointing out, that there is a slight curiosity in the sources here: it is Jeremy's assertion that J W W Gabriel disposed of the interest but a notice in The London Gazette for 1885 shows his father, John Wild Gabriel, ending a partnership with Troke, and that Troke then formed a similar arrangement with another person, but there is no such notice at any time for his son doing so;[27] and UK records of deaths suggest that John Wild Gabriel died in 1885." However, I'd prefer to do this in such a way that Troke's comment, which I presume to be peer-reviewed since it is from the ODNB, can be retained even if the curiosity which follows it is dispensed with. I can send you a PDF of the ODNB entry if you wish: regardless of AGF, I want this article to be right and will assist wherever possible to ensure that it is so, so please do not hold back. - Sitush (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind offer. My public library card gives me access to the ODNB entry; and I've seen it, so I was not particularly referring to that reference. Expanding on my (unduly) short comment. Firstly, I don't like some the words used, it looks like possible OR/synthesis. Some of ref 25 is visible on Google books, but not page 324, so the question in my mind was how much of that is verifiable - I assume that "it is claimed that Churchill ...." is verifiable; and that "Although it is difficult to envisage in view of his then undischarged bankruptcy" is commentary? Similarly, I don't much like "The answer may lie in fact that at some point" and "It is something of an aside, but worth pointing out, that there is a slight curiosity in the sources here". Stepping back somewhat, perhaps the "problem" is just I don't like the words, and that is the only problem. This paragraph consists of a number of verifiable statements and some commentary that there is inconsistency between the sources. That is an acceptable processes; and some changes to the prose will hopefully resolve any differences. Pyrotec (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The phrasing can be fiddled with, no problem (I hope). I can the page you refer to - search results inc. page 324 - Sitush (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Woops! I was trying to be too clever and preview that page in full. Pyrotec (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Action - revised the entire paragraph: less commentary, more verifiable statement. Not sure if this is now ok or requires more work. I've also moved the wikilinked convert tmplte to its first appearance in the text & converted BSA into wikilinked B'ham Small Arms Co. in the lead - these are unilateral edits but hopefully ok. - Sitush (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, its much improved. Pyrotec (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Early years as a limited company -

• Looks OK.

Comment - good. I was slightly concerned that a reviewer might consider the use of information from trade directories to be OR. Also, there is a slight problem with them because although they are online it is impossible to link directly to the relevant page, so anyone who wants to check online will have to do some legwork of their own when they get to the source website. - Sitush (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The requirement is compliance with WP:WIAGA, particularly 2 (a), (b), (c) and how much I choose to do myself, or ask the nominator to do is (technically) my decision; and different reviewers come to different decisions. I'd rather not award GA and have it overturned, so I tend to do two-day reviews but some people do "six in an hour"; and, I once did 58 reviews in one month (April 2010) and "burnt out". Pyrotec (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Expansion -

Stopping for now. ....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Looks OK.

• • The fallow years & Reorganisation -

• These two subsections look OK. Pyrotec (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Subsequent history: The Churchill Machine Tool Co. Ltd. & Subsequent history: Charles Churchill & Co. Ltd. -

• These two subsections look OK.

• Recognition & Notable staff -

• These two sections look OK.

• WP:Lead -

• A bit "thin" for for an article of this breadth, but probably acceptable.

Comment - I agree that it is thin. I've had issues with this from the outset of my involvement with the article: I can see that it doesn't do the thing full justice but am blowed if I can work out a suitable alternative or expansion. Any suggestions? Or am I stuck with my own devices here? - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

At this point there are a few minor "problems" that need some attention so I will put this review "On Hold". Pyrotec (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The WP:Lead is intended to both introduce the topic of the article, which it does well, and to summarise the main points in the article. I would suggest that a "bit more meat" is added to the "summary function". For instance: growth of parent company through the stages of private, partnership and limited co up to the end of WW I, moved into precision grinding; expand on the rationalisation of 1960s/70s followed by its liquidation. You've already got the summary of its BSA, TI, etc, era. I would suggest that a target would be to roughly double the size of the current lead. Pyrotec (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Action - lead now expanded per comments of User:Pyrotec. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A comprehensive, well referenced and illustrated article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced using a wide range of sources.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA. Congratulations on producing a fine article.

I consider that this article is well on its way to being a WP:FAC; however my oppinion is only one "voice" and it may be prudent to obtain a wider range of view points through the medium of WP:PR. Pyrotec (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, and also to the other editors who have contributed to this article and/or offered advice along the way.. Your comments and assistance in dealing with a newbie at GA Review have been part of an invaluable learning experience for me and they are much appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Churchill Machine Tool Company

The company's history is intertwined with its founder and the parent company, Churchill & Co., Ltd. The history of the parent company is all well and dandy, but there has to be a point when the Churchill Machine Tool Company is given a separate section and it is detailed on its own. Honestly, the way this page is, it should be called The history of Churchill & Co.--Screwball23 talk 18:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Demoting to C - class

This article is absolutely not GA class. The text is hard to follow, the lead is absolutely too thin for any appreciable information, and readers like me struggle to understand why this material is even notable. I also would push for the page to be renamed, as there is more information on the parent company than the Churchill Machine Tool Company. That issue alone weakens the usefulness of this page as a reference on the topic, simply because it does not separate the history of the parent company from the Churchill Machine Tool Company. I would feel upset if I wanted to read about the Churchill Machine Tool Company, and couldn't find anything about its history without sorting through about 50k of dense, highly-irrelevant information. In contrast to GAs, such as Burger King, this does not even come close to a GA. I don't want to bust anyone's balls here, but the entire page needs a serious copy-editing to establish readability for the page. I personally want to see a LOT of change before I would agree to a GAN discussion.--Screwball23 talk 18:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was a lot better a few days ago. I can't think what's happened to it? Maybe a random hatchet job by an editor with clearly no background in relevant content, and a fear of any sentence with more than half-a-dozen words in it. Perhaps you would indeed be happier at Burger King? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't mithered about the changes to the lead - it needed improving & I've said all along that I wasn't too good at writing them. I'm not too happy about much else that has gone on today (and am very unhappy about some of it). But I'm too close to the article to comment properly right now. This has hurt a bit. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Churchill Machine Tool Company → Churchill & Co. Ltd — I support the renaming of this page to Churchill & Co. Ltd, as the majority of this page is about its parent company, and only a small section describes the Churchill Machine Tool Company. --Screwball23 talk 19:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The editor making this assertion is not a member of the WP:GreaterManchester Group, West Midlands etc. A few days ago he took a well researched article about a defunct UK machine tool company and hacked it to a state where even he admits it has reverted to a C class. If he wishes to be constructive he can write an article on the ṕarent 'company', and the more expert contributors who had taken this article up to a GA will gladly assist him with material relevant to both. Until a peer review has taken place, I suggest that the article is rolled back to the state it was in before it was hacked, and be frozen. If the editor who has made this proposal has any further comment I suggest he uses the talk page. I have not edited this article and remain neutral. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is not focused enough to be a GA for the Churchill Machine Tool Company. I do not see why you would use words like "hacked" or attack my credentials based on what group I'm a part of. All I did was strengthen the material and again, specifics for my edits were given - any editor can come out and dispute the material and I would be willing to do that. I do not agree with the use of freezing and rolling back a page without talk page discussion.--Screwball23 talk 20:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment
• This section is about a name change
• Hacked- to slice out material without discussion
• A group- are specialists on a topic- they lend support and advice, and have a global overview of how a topic fits into the field of knowledge.
• You do not agree with freezing and rolling back without talk page discussion. This is a talk page - this is a discussion. Create a new section. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It's called WP:BRD (Bold, Revert, Discuss). You were bold and made a number of changes to the article. I disagree with them, so I reverted you. Now we are having a discussion about the changes you want to make. This is how Wikipedia works. Silverseren^C 21:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you disagree with about the edits? Bring up specifics, because all I saw was one blanket revert without explanation.--Screwball23 talk 03:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I made the section down below for this, where other users have also raised concerns about the series of edits you did. I think you should respond to them. Silverseren^C 03:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - first, I declare an interest as until today I'd done about 83% of all edits on this article. Reasons for opposition include (1) the proposer is at once attempting to move it and to have a GA Review - it all seems extremely hasty and ill-conceived; (2) the proposer unilaterally hacked into the article so much that it bore little resemblance to what it was andthen proposed a move based on his work, which took about 90 minutes and he claimed "strengthened" many, many hours of previous work by other editors over a prolonged time; (3) of the two companies, the machine tool company is better known today and indeed numerous items of its machinery are still in use worldwide (discussed at AfD in January) - it is a far more likely search term across the world; (4) the GA reviewer, who has only recently done his stuff, had no issue with the current naming convention; (5) as per ClemRutter's points. - Sitush (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • In regard to point (2), I would like to make it clear that it still resembled the article, and the sectioning and removal of irrelevant detail was absolutely crucial to making this a better, more readable article. The fact that more people know of the CMTC rather than C&C is important, but it still does not justify the jumbling of the two companies, particularly when there is enough material to make two pages, one on the CMTC and one on C&C. I believe every article suffers to some extent from Wikipedia:INPERSPECTIVE and Wikipedia:Notability, but the details here were absolutely unnecessary. The addresses and number of employees of the office locations? The speculation as to why a magazine would include a short brief explaining Churchill's visit to his mother? The number of square feet of the buildings? The address of the people at the time of their patent applications? Why is any of that notable to this page?--Screwball23 talk 02:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Centralized discussion of GA class and changes to articles

First off, this change on the talk page was highly inappropriate. Articles can only be demoted from GA class by initiating a GA Review. It's the same with Featured Articles.

Secondly, I have reverted the changes that were made today by User:Screwball23. They resulted in a significant loss of information in the article. The changes to the lede, as Sitush stated above, were not that bad, but the rest of the article was mangled pretty badly from these changes. I think this should be discussed before major changes are made to a GA class article. Silverseren^C 20:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The banner said if the material doesn't meet GA class, it can be demoted. I didn't know there was a procedure involved, but I have no issue with a review. Regarding the changes, I am willing to discuss the material, but I do not agree with just deleting the hard work I've done.--Screwball23 talk 20:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll be less emotional tomorrow (hopefully), but let me start with this:

• this was the 365th article reviewed by PYrotec for GA status, so I should hope that Pyrotec has some reasonable judgment after that sort of tally
• although I am by far the major contributor to this article, the input from others has been considerable even where it does not show in the edit history
• ... and then one person has turned up and in the space of 90 minutes or so turned the thing inside out, unilaterally.

I'm saying no more because the mood I am in right now about this action is not conducive to civil discussion. Let's just say: there is being bold and there is being extreme. - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) - responding to Screwball23 - Well, a major contributor to the article, and the GA-reviewer both disagree with your changes, so you need to get support for them here rather than getting into an edit war.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have watched this article since just after it was started a couple of months ago and I was dismayed to see the quantity of recent edits removing material, with no talk page discussion and some rather snippy comments in edit summaries. I'm not an expert on the topic and have not looked at the article as closely as the GA reviewers but it does seem to me that recent edits by Screwball23 have been too much, too fast and with too little collaborative discussion. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Now, where from here? Page protection is perhaps hinted at in the RM above (I suggest that the article is rolled back to the state it was in before it was hacked, and be frozen) but I hope it won't be necessary. And hacked is perhaps a bit severe. User:Screwball23 is relatively new here.

Agree the article should be restored to a version compatible with the GA status, and GA status restored... as has been done. Hang in there. Andrewa (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

[ec] I'm sorry? 'Relatively new'? Screwball has been on Wikipedia longer than I have! Apparently he has about 3000 edits to his name since October 2005, although looking at his history I would guess that between 1/3 and 1/2 of his edits are to a single article, and the rest are many changes to a small number of other articles. None of his prior involvement at WP suggests any interest in anything remotely related to this article. (Has the account been hijacked??) That's not to say he shouldn't be editing this article, of course, but regardless, to make such major changes to a recently promoted GA article beggars belief. -- EdJogg (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of us have been here even longer! But point taken. Agree he's made a mistake. No need to rub it in. Andrewa (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not make a mistake. I stand by my edits. The edits I made tightened the material and removed extraneous details and fluff. The only mistake I made was changing the GA class down, because apparently everyone was busy patting themselves on the back about that one, and now I am encountering personal attacks without a single person explaining why they dislike my edits.--Screwball23 talk 16:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Calm down. I haven't seen a personal attack here; you are dealing with a benign and supportive group of editors. I spoke to you on your talk page suggesting how you could help us appreciate your ideas by working up an article on a similar defunct Manchester machine tool company- I can give further suggestions if you like. There have been many indications of why your edits were inappropriate: these were categorised by speed of multiple edits, not discussing contentious issues on the talk page first, removal rather than reworking referenced text and to that I add edit comments that demonstrated the lack of significance of the text you were removing (reference to nationality of key investor-an early example of investment direction being reversed) and not understanding that the entire text had been discussed before being posted, the lack of response to comment on your talk page- so if that was a request for feedback- I have given you some, and I do look forward to seeing your ideas in the article I have suggested. --ClemRutter (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That is ludicrous. Speed of multiple edits? Anyone can edit a page, and there is no policy that states how much time a person has to wait to make a change. The issues are not contentious whatsoever : this is an issue of Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE and Wikipedia:NOTABILITY, which this page is especially weak in. No one to this day has come up with a reason why the material that I edited should be reverted, and that is why excuses like me "not understanding that the entire text had been discussed before being posted." I read the GA review and none of the editors even reached the end of the page when they reviewed it! That alone would disqualify it from being a GA. I also am skeptical why you would give me the run-around and suggest that I write a new article for your amusement. I am editing this page, and I was on-track to making it better. Why you want to push me into building another page that doesn't even exist is absolutely unfair and its an example of passive-aggressive behavior - just come out and say you don't want me to edit this page if that is your true intention.--Screwball23 talk 17:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the community is successfully keeping this difference of perspective from railroading over anyone's efforts. I haven't been scrutinizing every edit on my watchlist recently, but Sitush has been a very-good-faith contributor, and it would be damaging to our content development to lose such a contributor because their contributions had been gutted and they were driven away dejected. I suspect that in the decade ahead, we'd better err on the side of lots of content rather than not enough. The former can always be trimmed and polished in later decades by a healthy community. The latter could kill off the community, and there wouldn't be any later decades [of the project]. Of course Screwball123 shouldn't be driven away dejected, either, for the same reason. Hopefully the community's process of rebalancing will find a middle ground. Feel free to disagree, but thanks for letting me speak my view. — ¾-10 00:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Having seen today's banner advert regarding concern over retention of (newer) editors at Wikipedia, all editors have a duty to be more co-operative in their editing. I have seen a number of valuable, skilled editors driven away from WP through heavy-handed policy application or disagreements with other editors that got out of control. In my view, Sitush is one of the most diligent editors I have encountered here, with an eye for detail and research (ie finding references) that goes to a level beyond most other contributors. -- EdJogg (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

And I have seen a number of skilled, valuable editors driven away because IMO the behaviour rules were not applied nearly heavily enough. I might easily have been one of them, my first article was vandalised (there is no other word for it) by an admin who escaped all censure for it. Later, during a bitter confrontation with a soapbox editor who was subsequently banned for his behaviour, there was great reluctance to censure him and the fact that his ownership of an article had already driven three newbies away (including a world expert on the topic!) was held to be irrelevant because it had occurred too long previously. Hang in there. Andrewa (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• As the original reviewer of this article at WP:GAN and the awarder of GA-status. I have referred the article to WP:GAR for Community Reassessment. In view of the comments made above and the referral of this article at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Churchill Machine Tool Company I believe a certain editor is involved in WP:Disruptive editing and I wish to clarify the status of this article as a GA.I continue to beleive that this article is GA-class. Pyrotec (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Improvements to the article

[[1]]

In my edit, I tightened the paragraphs by removing a lot of trivial information. I also made the language more direct and focused. The line about The capital restructuring saw the addition of Herbert Chamberlain for example, could be made much more direct and readable by simply saying "he was added during the company's re-organization." There are many, many examples in the work I've done. Please check out the changes and we can discuss it below.--Screwball23 talk 02:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This period of British-US engineering development has been the subject of analysis by economic historians. 'Right now there are economic historians studying British-US engineering. There are historians studying just about anything you can think of. It is like saying, "historians have analyzed this period"'

S B Saul, writing in 1960, determined that British engineering and its methods was advanced in spheres such as the manufacture of textile machinery but less so in that of light machine tools and the machinery of mass production. 'Not related. Yes, the British were advanced at textile work, but that is tangential.'

He argued that in the latter areas the response by British manufacturers to the imports from the US "belatedly matured so their influence permeated back through the whole engineering trade and began a rejuvenation of old fossilised trades" in the 1890s. 'Unreadable. It is a word salad. It just doesn't make sense.'

He broadly agreed with the contemporary opinion of Churchill that the adoption of US methods was slow in the light machine tools sector primarily because there was a perceived lack of demand and return on investment in this area to excite the interest of British engineers. 'Ok, so he confirmed or agreed with Churchill's view. Churchill's view being that it wasn't cost-effective to the British engineers.'

He viewed the cycle boom as the catalyst for growth in this area but also pointed out that the heavy machine tool sector was one of those which had not been previously neglected by British engineers. 'Ok, so whats the point? Why is this important to the company history?'--Screwball23 talk 02:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Your changes to the text appear to be reasonable. I was going to revert them, but after reading them several times decided to leave them. I will make one observation: your addition of the section title "Birth of the Churchill Machine Tool Company" is not compliant with WP:Headings. Since the article is called the "Churchill Machine Tool Company", section titles should not include "Churchill Machine Tool Company", or "Machine Tool Company", etc. That rule is broken (twice) elsewhere in the article, but so far I could not find a way round the problem: breaking it a third time by adding another title is probably going too far. Pyrotec (talk) 07:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think going with just Origins as a title would be good for that section. Silverseren^C 07:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

These changes are more constructive than the previous set; they'd be even better in my opinion if they were offered as helpful, collaborative support rather than as criticism of what has gone before. Apart from anything else, a more collaborative approach is less likely to put people's backs up and more likely to mean your changes will stick! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't find this kamakazi editing acceptable, and give notice that I will possibly roll back when I have had 48 hours to consider the changes which will be at the weekend. The phrase trivial material sets alarm bells ringing- trivial to whom? A serious case of POV. I have looked at the edit comments- which really explain nothing about what is being slashed. Pyrotech was right in his assessment Your changes to the text appear to be reasonable. I was going to revert them,... and I thing they should be reverted untill the principal editors have had time to consider each one in the context of their expert knowledge. Kim Dent-Brown has identified the problem- and it is not with the article--ClemRutter (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Quit the personal attacks. You've been warned.--Screwball23 talk 02:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry also, but this is a mess, with a few saving graces. And doing so much in one edit makes it difficult to undo any small piece and also to reference it in any discussion here. Some small examples of problems which are now present

• changing the headings around so that there are two subsections under the Charles Churchill subsection makes it appear as though this is all about him when in fact it is not. "Early years as a limited company" has become a sub-subsection and retitled "Early years" - it isn't Charles' early years.
• the company is now referred to as being "his" company. There is no evidence to support this - we do not know what the shareholdings were etc.
• detail has been cut in what I regard to be a cavalier manner - some of it might be boring/trivial to one person but, I promise you, is of interest to others.

I think that the entire thing should be reverted and then we agree to go through it section by section, from the top. Well, from the top below the lead - we can come back to that once the detail has been looked into. Yes, it will take a while to do this but it is surely preferable to what has gone on these last few days. - Sitush (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not even sure that Screwball23's recent edits are appropriate because s/he has previously been referred to the bold, revert, discuss article. We're on the discussion phase, and making changes then discussing them is somewhere around the bold phase. Or so I think, anyway - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to revert him then and we can go through the changes step by step to see if they should be added back in. Silverseren^C 00:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that if I can get a discussion going. All I see is personal attacks and meritless policy disputes. The entire WP:BRD policy only works if opposing editors give a discussion on the content.--Screwball23 talk 02:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Section review - Early years as a limited company

Ok, I've reverted the recent mass edit in order that we can go through this in smaller, more easily digested chunks. It will make life a lot easier in referring to things and, hopefully, we can reach a consensus here and then change the section. So, open for comments on the first section which appears to have had issues from the perspective of Screwball23 - Churchill_Machine_Tool_Company#Early_years_as_a_limited_company. List the proposals -> discussion -> change. How does that sound? - Sitush (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I just explained above my reasons for the change above. I could go line by line for the entire change. I want to see some people actually take my views into account, because all I see is people who talk policies about "how appropriate my edits were" "how bold my edits were". I want to make it clear that it is not POV to take out irrelevant and unrelated material. Saying "well, it might be interesting to someone" is not productive because it is still unrelated. Again, I discussed line by line one paragraph and still I see everyone reverted my edits. I'm going to post it below and I want people to talk about it, because I know 100% that it makes no sense to keep it as is when there is a stronger, more relevant, more direct alternative.--Screwball23 talk 02:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This period of British-US engineering development has been the subject of analysis by economic historians. 'Right now there are economic historians studying British-US engineering. There are historians studying just about anything you can think of. It is like saying, "historians have analyzed this period"'

S B Saul, writing in 1960, determined that British engineering and its methods was advanced in spheres such as the manufacture of textile machinery but less so in that of light machine tools and the machinery of mass production. 'Not related. Yes, the British were advanced at textile work, but that is tangential.'

He argued that in the latter areas the response by British manufacturers to the imports from the US "belatedly matured so their influence permeated back through the whole engineering trade and began a rejuvenation of old fossilised trades" in the 1890s. 'Unreadable. It is a word salad. It just doesn't make sense.'

He broadly agreed with the contemporary opinion of Churchill that the adoption of US methods was slow in the light machine tools sector primarily because there was a perceived lack of demand and return on investment in this area to excite the interest of British engineers. 'Ok, so he confirmed or agreed with Churchill's view. Churchill's view being that it wasn't cost-effective to the British engineers.'

He viewed the cycle boom as the catalyst for growth in this area but also pointed out that the heavy machine tool sector was one of those which had not been previously neglected by British engineers. 'Ok, so whats the point? Why is this important to the company history?'--Screwball23 talk 02:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Your comment regarding the supposed triviality of This period of British-US engineering development has been the subject of analysis by economic historians is not strictly true or, at least, I'd like to see your proof. The study of history has fads & other things get neglected, just like anything else in life, and the 60s/70s saw a fad for micro-histories of industrial subjects. Don't ask me why because I don't know - I'm not sure that anyone knows how fads develop. One theory that was postulated in this case was that British engineering was having such a hard time of it in the 60s/70s that historians looked to find the origins of something that was very much in the news at the time. In turn, with the development of the analysis and research tools, the opinions differed as time went on - hence Saul differs from Floud. Regardless, I'm content to see this sentence go with a little rewording elsewhere to account for the fact that it actually refers to the content of the following paragraph also.

Proposal: This period of British-US engineering development has been the subject of analysis by economic historians. S B Saul, an economic historian writing in 1960, determined that British engineering and its methods was advanced in spheres such as the manufacture of textile machinery but less so in that of light machine tools and the machinery of mass production. And then slightly modify the start of the next para to reflect that Floud was a later historian, revisiting Saul's thesis.

2. Your comment about ... determined that British engineering and its methods was advanced in spheres such as the manufacture of textile machinery but less so in that of light machine tools and the machinery of mass production. being tangential is something, I'm afraid, that I cannot accept. It is a singular feature of British engineered tool/machine development that some areas were in fact not developed whilst others were. Since Britain at the time was the hub of industrial mechanisation it needs to be made clear to the readers who are aware of Britain's pre-eminence in machinery manufacture at the time that it was not a general pre-eminence but rather a selective one. The fact that they chose to neglect some areas - and it was a choice, as is made clear - directly impacted on what happened next, gave Churchill a market opportunity etc.

3. I cannot agree with your comment that He argued that in the latter areas the response by British manufacturers to the imports from the US "belatedly matured so their influence permeated back through the whole engineering trade and began a rejuvenation of old fossilised trades" in the 1890s. is a word salad. However, feel free to propose a rephrasing to make it less awkward for readers such as yourself.

4. I do not understand what you mean in relation to He broadly agreed with the contemporary opinion of Churchill that the adoption of US methods was slow in the light machine tools sector primarily because there was a perceived lack of demand and return on investment in this area to excite the interest of British engineers. What is the point of your comment? Especially bearing in mind that "cost effectiveness" was not Churchill's only explanation and that historians often disagree with decisions made in the time they are studying: the (supposed) benefit of hindsight, seeing wood for trees etc. Anyway, I'll re-read the source (which, I suspect, you have not read once) & see why I used the word "broadly" etc. Get back to you. Actually, I can send you a copy if you want.

5. I also do not understand your query regarding He viewed the cycle boom as the catalyst for growth in this area but also pointed out that the heavy machine tool sector was one of those which had not been previously neglected by British engineers. Churchill moved into heavy machine tools in a big way, so it is significant that, although the light machine tool sector was his opening, he was then able to muscle in on a sector that the British engineering businesses had been heavily involved in. The first gave him the impetus (financial, experience, market knowledge, contacts etc) for the second. It is, at worst, a benign comment and I see no reason to remove it.

But these are just my views and consensus will doubtless prevail. - Sitush (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Just came across something which is totally irrelevant to this article but directly relates to Screwball23's belief that historians are studying just about everything. Just as well he said "just about"! - gaps exist in the historiography/new debates & old controversies continue - Sitush (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I seem to be impatient but has this discussion died a death? There is a peer review waiting on it & I'd like to keep the reviewer informed. - Sitush (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)