Talk:Bakewell, Pears and Company

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: TwoScars (talk · contribs) 21:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 20:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I'm happy to review this article under the Good Article criteria, as it's been nominated for a few months now. Have proceeded with a brief copy edit as was previously done at 18th century glassmaking in the United States. It will take me a bit to get through checking all of the references so forgive me this delay. Reconrabbit 20:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for looking at this. I just returned home from a trip, and need to "wipe" Blenko Glass Company and Glassmaking at Blenko Glass Company from my mind. I hope to get to the review Thursday afternoon. TwoScars (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I did look at the latter article there yesterday while searching around. Still looking at references now—just a clarification to make. Reconrabbit 18:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Caught up as of 4:37 pm EST. I have started using multiref when I have a citation with multiple references, so if you think it would be worthwhile to convert all multiple reference citations in this article to using multiref, I can certainly do it. It looks like there are about 20 instances. TwoScars (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't require it as part of this review but it would be nice to have consistency for future editing. I hardly noticed it when reviewing the article in visual editor-mode. Should be able to finish reviewing references today - apologies for the slow work. Reconrabbit 17:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Prose

Background

• Is there a way to avoid using "also" twice so close together in Benjamin's own son, also named Thomas, also became involved in the business?

Reworded to: "Among those assisting him in his New York import business was Thomas Woodhouse Bakewell, son of Benjamin's brother William. Benjamin's own son, also named Thomas, became involved in the business in 1807 at the age of fourteen." TwoScars (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Beginning

• It's strange to mention Bakewell was able to make his own red lead using Mississippi pig lead around 1910 1810 when several years later domestic producers were still struggling with an inability to import red lead. Is it not connected in the literature?

"1810" I'll have to think more on this. Red lead was available (except during the War of 1812), but the English charged high prices. Glass could be made without red lead, but it did not look nearly as good. Bottles did/do not need red lead. By 1819 Deming Jarves was producing red lead near Boston, and the few crystal glass makers that existed could buy it from him. TwoScars (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

With the explanation that crystal glass makers could buy red lead from Jarves in 1819, that note makes a lot more sense. Reconrabbit 18:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Modified the note to say "After the War of 1812, England kept the price of red lead high enough that American purchasers could not compete with lower cost foreign glassware. Deming Jarves' New England Glass Company became a domestic source for red lead when it began producing it around 1819." TwoScars (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Prosperity returns

• One author called mechanical pressing "the greatest contribution of America to glassmaking, and the most important development since the Romans discovered glassblowing...." Does the text trail off like this in the book, or can it just be substituted with a "[...] glassblowing".[reference]

Here is the exact sentence: "In fact, the greatest contribution of America to glassmaking, and the most important development since the Romans discovered glassblowing, was the sudden speed-up in the manufacturing process made possible by machine pressing." Would it be better to replace the sentence with: One author called mechanical pressing "the greatest contribution of America to glassmaking, and the most important development since the Romans discovered glassblowing". TwoScars (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The replacement looks good to me. Reconrabbit 18:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Made change. TwoScars (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Middle years, Big changes, Decline

• No notes

Talent provider

• Unusual section heading. "Legacy" may more concisely describe the content.

Changed to Legacy. TwoScars (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

References

• Layout: All content under the heading Notes and beyond is in order. Y
• Zerwick 1990 is cited with at least one unique page number in the text (p. 79, reference 84) but the reference lists page 112.

Fixed. The "112" is the total number of pages in the book. I have removed the "112". TwoScars (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense. Listing total pages is probably better suited to a different citation style than the one used here, (written out as 112 pages instead of p.112) I haven't seen it much on Wikipedia. Reconrabbit 18:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Spot checking

Checking 15% (21 references). Referring to only those I can actually read unless quote has been provided. Based on this revision:

• [4] Y
• [14] Y
• [19] Y
• [25] Y
• [29] Y on all three accounts
• [33] Y
• [36] Y on both accounts
• [42] Y though red lead/high quality sand is mentioned on p. 206
• [56] Y
• [60] Y
• [65] Y
• [69] Y
• [70] Y
• [86] Y
• [88] Y
• [89] Y
• [90] Describes Andrew Jackson as a hero of the Battle of New Orleans, but no mention of Rachel Jackson - is this information and the subsequent glassware purchases described in Palmer 2004?

Palmer says "In March 1825, shortly after the Clay decanters were exhibited in Washington, Benjamin Bakewell made a private gift of glassware to Rachel Jackson, wife of Andrew, who was then serving as United States Senator from Tennessee." [My own view of Palmer's wording is that she makes it seem like Rachel was the Senator—but we know better.] "The pair of elegant cut and engraved celery glasses are personalized with her initials." TwoScars (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• [96]b Y based on quotation
• [114] Y
• [120] Y
• [134] Y

Scope

• Broad: Describes the history of the company, its background and influence. Y
• Narrow: Doesn't go into agonizing detail - though further information is provided to the reader when such is available through Notes, which are appreciated. Y

Stability

• Neutrality: Neutral point of view is maintained throughout. Y
• Edit warring: This article and its content has not yet met any opposition or been subject to disruption. Y

Images

• Free/Fair use: All images are public domain, are used under the appropriate license with attribution, or have been donated by the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Y
• Relevance: Images are placed with relevance to the time period where they would be encountered in relation to the history, or as close as possible (noted specifically with the greyhound glass and the 1921 advertisement, which are basically contemporaneous and could be switched on preference; all other images seem well suited to where they are).

Not that concerned about the images—if you think some should be switched or omitted, no problem here. I like the 1821 advertisement, which was by Thomas Pears selling glass, next to the "Sales downriver" discussion of Thomas Pears selling glass. However, it is true that the second paragraph mentions the greyhounds, which do not appear in an image until the next section. TwoScars (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Just a matter of preference. Reconrabbit 18:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.