Talk:Inland Steel Company

• fully integrated in 1944 does this refer to business integration or racial integration?
  • Vertically integrated, it's stated as such later on since it became "no longer vertically integrated" (linked now and also in the lead).
• I/N Tek and I/N Kote are these subsidiary companies? Types of steel? Steel plants? Clarify.

They were joint venture partnerships. I have added some more information in both the history and facilities sections.--BoatnerdJenn (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• As is my usual practice, I've gone through and made smaller prose tweaks myself to save us both time. If there are any you object to, just let me know.

I appreciate that!--BoatnerdJenn (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• On the whole the prose is good. Beyond the two questions above, only one more thing - the lead could stand to be a little longer. I would add 3-4 more sentences summarizing the most important aspects of the company's history including the union. Feel free to re-organize what's already there. We're close! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • I think what I've done in the lead addresses the main points. Though it could feasibly be written better? It's 2 AM here, not sure. Reconrabbit 06:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I made some alterations and can work on it more tomorrow if it helps--BoatnerdJenn (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Issues addressed, pass.

• The first external link would be better-off incorporated into the article as an image. Should be fine for copyright I believe given the date.

• I have removed the external link and captioned in a style consistent with other photos — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoatnerdJenn (talk • contribs) 13:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Who is Michael Tenenbaum? Odd that he's not referenced in the article but his papers are given as an External Link.
  • He was president of the company from 1971-1978. Not mentioned in the sources used for that period of time but apparently an influential figure. Some context was added under Firm history.
• Third external link (Arcelor Mittal) is dead
  • There appears to be an archived copy but it relies on stylesheets that don't exist so it's not that useful. Maybe delete?
    • Yes, I'd say it should be deleted. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
• Fourth external link is good (even great!) but should be given a few more words of description in the link.
  • Some context was added.

• Issues resolved, assuming ArcelorMittal link will be addressed. Pass.

• Pass, no issues.

• At least two of the primary sources are non-independent of the corporation. Please ensure you check they are being used for facts only and not analysis or conjecture. I will also double-check this as I do the source and prose review.
  

• I wish I could have found all of that information in other sources. When other sources did have the same information, they were in agreement with the non-independent sources. If you find anything problematic, I will try to find it in another source or remove it.

• Is Boatnerd a reliable source? And does either of the nominators have any kind of connection to the website or is that just coincidence?

  I don't have any connection to Boatnerd personally. There's an article here on Wikipedia about the organization that appears to establish reliability but the references are quite old and many are dead links or subscription only. Reconrabbit

• It is considered a very reliable source in the Great Lakes Marititime History community. No actual connection to the organization. My username just signifies my area of interest, as in it is specific to the maritime history of the Great Lakes

• I don't think we can safely regard it as reliable - the cite should be removed and the info removed (or a new cite added if possible Ganesha811 (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done--What I could not find elsewhere was removed

• For Northwest Indiana Steel Heritage Project, the original link 404s and should be marked as dead or updated. Also, what exactly is the organization? It seems to be sponsored by ArcelorMittal and the steelworkers union and therefore could hardly be regarded as independent.

  It looks like the link is marked as dead with the archive-url parameter now. The organization is stated as an independent non-profit, though much of their information is likely derived from ArcelorMittal and the union; it's at a minimum a secondary source if not an independent one. Reconrabbit

• It appears to be a historical organization that established a museum that receives federal funding. It also has ties to Indiana University Northwest

• Seems fine. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• The Iron Age and the Chronicle seem fine as reliable business and trade journals, as do a couple others.
• #42, the Tribune source, should be decapitalized.

  Done. Reconrabbit

• #82 (Sue Leaf) could use a page #.

• Done

• Great Lakes Vessel History looks like an enthusiast's blog. Is it reliable?

  If the home page is to be believed, the website was written by the late Great Lakes vessel historian Sterling Berry and is maintained by a historian who publishes annual works on ships on the Great Lakes. Reconrabbit

It is now maintained by the same person who is in charge of the Boatnerd website and Know Your Ships, Roger LaLievre, which is why I deemed it a reliable source

• I don't regard this as a reliable source, unfortunately. It is the work of dedicated amateurs and enthusiasts, which is very respectable, but not enough to meet the GA standard on Wikipedia. Same as above - please remove and replace (or remove the cited info). —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
  

Done

• Since #95 (American Steamship Co) is only used once, it can just be cited directly rather than being listed in the bibliography.

  Done.

• All issues above addressed - new sources listed by nominator at top also look fine - will recheck if there are any new issues. Pass.

• None found - pass.

• This phrase is borrowed/copyvio in External Links and should be modified: series of his writings and speeches and a small number of Inland Steel Company publication

  It's been done away with. Reconrabbit

• Earwig finds nothing else, hold for manual spot check.
• Spot checked during prose review, a couple tweaks to avoid close paraphrasing, no major issues. Pass.

• Coverage of the '70s, 80s, and 90s seems sparse and the current text raises more questions than it answers. Why did Inland Steel stop being profitable in the '80s and 90s? What were the "internal reforms" that led to sudden immense profitability? If they were profitable in the '90s, what factors led to them being acquired rather than remaining independent?

A misleading sentence was removed and more detailed information has been provided,

• The Facilities section is perhaps a bit overdetailed, especially given that it appears to only cover the first half of the 20th century. There's only one sentence for anything after 1950.

More information was found and provided. Another editor put in subheadings, making it more reader-friendly

• Similarly the Local 1010 section (otherwise very interesting) doesn't mention much after the 1950s. The 70s, 80s and 90s were interesting times for American labor - anything from Local 1010? What was the impact of acquisition in the 1990s?

• I agree with this all of this. I will look for more information about the specific things you mentioned and after the 1950's in general. It will probably take me a few days, so hopefully by Tuesday I will have this issue addressed.

• Sounds good! —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I could not find anything notable after the 1950's, no strikes or anything that would be of interest to the reader. It can be removed if it does not fit.

• Issue addressed, pass.

• As mentioned, the Facilities section has some extraneous detail that can be trimmed out. It's at 769 words at the moment but could be brought to around 500 or fewer. Expanded material covering later time periods might result in it expanding again which wouldn't be a problem.

• There was some odd information in there that I tried to awkwardly work around and fix. I hate to remove anyone's previous work, but some of it does not really fit in and probably just needs removed. I will research more to see if I can find anything more about facilities after the 1950's/

• Issue addressed, pass.

The facilities section has been expanded and Big Turtle has broken it up with subheadings.

• No major neutrality issues found - check for minor issues re: sourcing in prose review. No passages of promotionalism. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• No issues, pass.

• Pass, no issues.

• It's unclear to me whether the Indiana Harbor shot actually shows Inland Steel's Mill, or if those facilities have been closed or reworked significantly since the company shut down. Could you clarify? File:Indiana Harbor Peninsula 2.jpg also seems like a good option if the former is the case.

• I tried to find that picture but could not, the contributor is inactive. After hours of looking for free-use photos, I had to admit defeat and use your suggestion. Thank you!

• Issues addressed (images moved), minor caption tweaks can be handled in prose, pass.