Talk:Crucible Industries

The Beginning (do not delete)

I am interested in knife making and how to make them. I've been learning about knife steels and kept seeing Crucible. I had found a couple of Crucible's steels in Wikipedia, but not the company. I was surprised, and I thought it would be an interesting first article, so I joined as an editor. First, I thought I would try to get the basic information in that would be the easiest to reference, but this led to the company not being considered notable. So, then I added a historical timeline, several other references, and many other Wikipedia related articles. To be a little proactive, I asked Huon on Help Chat to take a look at it, and I think I've addressed most of what he shared. Alrich44 (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Notability

I think the company is notable because Wikipedia already has pages on their products and other pages that refer to them, many knife makers using their products, knife retailer's steel listings include Crucible's steels, and the company has and interesting and extensive history in the US steel industry. They've had several "firsts" in both US and world steel production. Each time I make a different pass through searching, I find some more on them. Most of their history predates the web, so its not as easy to find them. Hopefully, the next time people search for who Crucible is, Wikipedia will be able to give them a pretty full answer. I would like to get the framework in place so that others can add to it. Alrich44 (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Big versus specialty steels

Deciding a company is notable based on volume is easier in the steel industry, such as U.S. Steel. Then there are the companies that produce the steel to make the other steel, these are the specialty steels. There is also the measuring a company within its market. Crucible both makes the steel that builds the tools to produce other steel (tool steel) and has in its history been one of the largest producers of this kind of steel. Alrich44 (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

How far back in history and which path

How far back in history and which path to follow on the founding companies?

I decided to use a combination of ways to explain Crucible's history and follow the general pattern of summary-overview to detail, and I believe I've come up with a way to solve where to start their history. Most historians who write about Crucible begin with the same founding events, but having Crucible in the name does not start until 1900. Then there is central site where Crucible has continuously produced steel, Syracuse. And there is the intellectual property. I decided to use them all to explain its history based the central-continuing location. Some of the twelve-to-fourteen companies that founded Crucible could become their own articles. Alrich44 (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Crucible's history page (history) goes back to 1876 when Sanderson buys Sweet's steel works. Not until later did I realize Sanderson sold the Syracuse site to Crucible and was no longer involved. So, why include them? The Sanderson steelworks has remained a part of the company for decades, maybe even still today. (I understand they moved and returned.) Another aspect, is one of the twelve founding companies (Park) may have been a larger producer of specialty steel (hard to tell because the statement includes open-hearth). Then the headquarters has also moved a few times. I'm not clear where the headquarters was in 1900. So, I decided to work toward clearly explaining what happened, both when the name Crucible started being used and where the companies that formed Crucible came from. People in the industry and those consuming their products have commonly referred to the company as Crucible since 1900. Alrich44 (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Timeline

As history is added to the article, please first write it in detailed timeline, then as appropriate in the historical overview.

Even though Wikipedia strongly prefers narrative. To me, the timeline gives a "graphical" way to see the major times and events that are more easily referenced for specific statements and provide the clear references for the details that may be lost in narrative rewrites. These function almost as an expanded set of notes, and discussion may have them move to end of the article. In addition, beginning each sentence with "In the year," seems like not a good style, but when these are dropped, historical reference and cross-checking becomes more difficult. In the overview, one sentence or paragraph may include things from several time periods and explaining all that with the dates may confuse the topic. So, I prefer to have both: a narrative overview for interesting reading with a more detailed timeline to show both, a quick date reference with details that may not be appropriate in a summary. Alrich44 (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Downgrade B to C

Hi Baffle gab1978, You downgraded the article with this comment, "rerated as C-class; article has several, major problems (long, rambling lists etc)." How am I suppose to fix it when this is what is provided? Alrich44 (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alrich44, I re-graded the article to C-class because I think in it's present state that's a fair assessment:

The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.

— Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#Grades

Lists can be condensed into prose, focussing on main points, major events etc. Merging the history sub-sections ('overview' and 'timeline') would help, and removing stuff like "By 1910, almost all of the EAFs were three-phase alternating-current and would remain so for the next seventy years, until direct-current started demonstrating some advantages". How was this important to the company?

The article's focus is Crucible Industries, not its customers or some notable knife-makers. These can be mentioned but only if relevant to Crucible. Tell us why they use the company's products? What do they say about these products? How do they use them? There are stand-alone articles about these people; extensive information about the knives they make isn't germane to the company. Why is it important that Ernest Emerson's knives are used by the US Navy SEALS? Everything in the article should relate back to the company, not be a dead-end. This kind of detail belongs in the knife-makers' articles, not here—see WP:COATRACK.

Please don't take my reassessment as an attack on the article; it isn't. Always remember there's an end-user who wants clear, concise and relevant information. If you searched for something and found this kind of article, would you find it useful? Would you read through all of that text to find what you needed? Always consider the reader; we editors are (and should be) invisible to them. I've been doing a bit of cleaning-up on the article; mostly refactoring and condensing the text, and I've adjusted the layout and structure to better conform to the Manual of Style, but it needs a lot of work to bring it back to B-grade standard.

I hope you find the above useful. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Baffle gab1978, I do find the above useful. Thank you for explaining. Alrich44 (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Founding companies

We don't know how major or minor the other companies were, aside from Park being the largest. We just know something about the ones that Glimer chose to write about. Alrich44 (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll tweak that sentence. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed text

From "Knife designers and makers"; referenced text that belongs in other articles, per WP:COATRACK:

[Chris Reeve]] is one of the most influential people in knife making history. He invented the Kubuli serration pattern and several unique locking mechanisms for folding knives, including the Helix, Integral, and 45. He developed the One Piece concept – a hollow handled knife with both the handle and blade milled from a single billet of steel.

He [Bob Loveless] is considered to be the first to produce a tactical knife, as used by the US Army Special Forces and the CIA. Bob was inducted into the Blade magazine's Cutlery Hall of Fame in 1985, and is considered to be one of the most collectible knifemakers.

(Citations retained in article; left here for reference) Syderco has collaborated with over thirty knife makers, including: Ernest Emerson, William (Bill) F. Moran, Bob Terzuola, Ken Onion, Massad Ayoob, and Mike Snody.

(heavily edited; citations retained in article) Ernest Emerson is a martial artist, and edged-weapons expert. His knives are hard-ground from differentially heat-treated A2 tool steel, known for their distinctive chisel-ground blades, similar to Japanese samurai swords. His Close Quarters Combat —Six (CQC-6) is a handmade tactical folding knife with a tantō blade and is used by the US Navy SEALs. Emerson Knives Inc., founded in 1996, is Emerson's production knife company. They most commonly machine blades from 154CM steel. An Emerson CQC-7 knife in 2013 was charitably auctioned for $35,400; it had been carried by the US Navy SEAL point man on the mission to capture Osama bin Laden. The SEAL wrote the book No Easy Day: The Firsthand Account of the Mission that Killed Osama bin Laden.

(heavily edited; citations retain in article) He [Mike Snody] has also collaborated with Benchmade Knives, Heckler and Koch, and Ka-Bar. In 2005, Snody's design helped Benchmade to win the Knife of the Year Award from the Shooting Industry Academy of Excellence.

(heavily edited; some citations retained in article) Phill Hartsfield is noted for popularizing the chisel ground blade in the western world. His blades are Japanese-katana influenced, each one is hand ground from A2 tool steel, and differentially edge hardened. Most of his blades are designed as tools as used by the US Navy Seals and the USMC MARSOC teams., and some are museum quality on display at the Canadian Army Museum at Halifax Citadel, Nova Scotia, as examples of samurai swords.

References

Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Active voice, present tense

I prefer active voice, present tense; active voice is recommended in several style manuals.[1][2] Even when writing about the past, when the reader knows the date context, the statement is true. For me, this helps bring the past more to life. Example: In 1900, thirteen companies merge together to form Crucible. I like what you're doing with the article. Cheers. Alrich44 (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Arich44, I prefer active voice in most circumstances too, but only where appropriate. Regarding present-tense prose, as far as I know this is only prescribed in plot summaries in articles about fictional works. Wikipedia uses formal, Standard English of whatever variety. Past tense use is standard in historical contexts in English grammar—for instance, "In 1999, Fred travelled to Bournemouth for his holiday", rather than "In 1999, Fred travels to Bournemouth for his holiday". If the event occurs regularly, we can also use the present tense; "Every year, Fred travels to Bournemouth for his holiday". Check Battle of Hastings, a featured historical article that is written in past tense. Above all, remember we're writing for others and not for ourselves, a teacher, a university professor or a manager etc. Thanks for the encouragement though; one tries. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Baffle gab1978, You're welcome, and thank you for the explanation. Alrich44 (talk) 09:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Image relevance and positioning

In beginning to copyedit this article (and noting Baffle gab's comments above), I notice that few of the many images are directly relevant to the article's subject. While some are appropriate, most belong in the other steel-related articles rather than here; a GA reviewer will probably pick that up also. All the best, Miniapolis 20:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, if you're looking ahead to a possible GAN, instead of having all the images marching down the right side of the page (the default position) it's more visually appealing to alternate between right and left. Miniapolis 19:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)