Template:Did you know nominations/Shelby Gem Factory

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 14:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Shelby Gem Factory, Larry Paul Kelley[edit]

( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)
Shelby Gem Factory
Shelby Gem Factory

... that the Shelby Gem Factory (pictured), founded by Larry Paul Kelley, makes more varieties of synthetic and man-made gemstones than any other company in the world?

Created by Doug Coldwell (talk) and 7&6=thirteen (talk). Nominated by Doug Coldwell (talk) at 10:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC).

  • To be clear, I am not reviewing this nomination; someone else will have to do that. The reasons I'm not doing the review are 1) I'm too new at reviewing DYK noms, in my own estimation, and 2) I'm going to be going in and trying to edit at least one of the articles so that it has a chance of passing NPOV. As of now, much of both articles reads like advertisement. I have to wonder whether user:Doug Coldwell has a personal and/or business relationship with Shelby Gem Factory and/or Larry Paul Kelley. Personally, I think the hook would be stronger without mentioning Mr. Kelley at all; his name in there feels too promotional. All that said, I have a passing interest in gemstones, so I'm feeling motivated to tweak at least the one article to save it from being nominated for deletion. We'll see what my Google-fu brings up for sources... —GrammarFascist (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @GrammarFascist: I am disturbed by your comment where you wonder if seasoned editor @Doug Coldwell has a "personal and/or business relationship" with either SGF or LPK; please assume good faith and be very careful with innuendo. As for wanting to improve these or any other articles, that's what we're here for, mate, so join in as you please. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Rosiestep: Sorry; I have seen other editors come right out and ask someone who created an article full of promotional language whether the article creator had a COI, so I thought that's how it was done. How should I have phrased it? Meanwhile, both user:Doug Coldwell and I have removed some of the promotional language from the Shelby Gem Factory article, but I feel there may still be a bit too much. I think it might help if a third editor looked it over so its DYK nomination doesn't fail. —GrammarFascist (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I have 365 Did You Know articles, a few that are multiple article hooks that range from 2 to 30 articles in a single line DYK. I have created 370 articles (five are pending DYKs) and have some 30,000 edit contributions. From my past experience this article qualifies as a DYK as it stands now. Of course I don't mind additional improvements.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Just passing this along - my wife asked me "Why don't we go visit this place. It would be an easy day trip." We have never been there, however it sounds totally fascinating. Got everything from the Web.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Just passing this along also - look under my picture to see videos on how I normally do research for the articles I create. Usually I use books, however some I create from just online sources - like this one. Also don't forget to look at the newspaper article written up on me.
  • Like I say, from my experience this article qualifies as a Did You Know as it stands now.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, did I mention that the Factory pictures were uploaded to Wikipedia (not Commons) over 9 years ago - by Larry P. Kelley himself. So I guess if there is a conspiracy here, we have been working on it for almost 10 years.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Here is where Larry Kelley added one of the pictures to the Skull crucible article in February of 2006.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't matter even if Doug did know the company and was being paid by them to write it. As long as it reads neutrally and is sourced reliably. Not that I think he is working for the company, but still. It's a lovely new article. And I checked what he wrote originally and see nothing promotional or gushing about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that Larry Paul Kelley founded the Shelby Gem Factory (pictured) which makes more varieties of synthetic and man-made gemstones than any other company in the world?
  • - new enough, long enough, citations and sources checks, good alt1 hook. Good 2 go.BabbaQ (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned that some of the phrasing used is too close to that of the sources. Compare for example the Kelley article and this source. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I have copyedited and expanded the Kelley article. Will this work?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it's still too close. One specific example is "Kelley learned that making ruby laser rods was interesting, but didn’t prove profitable" vs "But making rubies for laser rods, while interesting, didn’t prove very profitable", but the problem is more pervasive than that single phrase. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
O.K. I'll continue to make improvements to the Kelley article today.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: I further copyedited and improved the Kelley article. I have reduced the Earwig's Copyvio Detector from 1.0% to 0.0% confidence on all websites. I also double checked by entering in each line into Google, without quotes, and not once did it come to the website A Flaming Success at the Shelby Gem Factory. I would think if there was close phrasing used that it would bring up that site at least one time on one of the sentences. Will that work for a green tick?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • No, it won't. We can't rely on automated tools like Copyvio Detector to determine close paraphrasing, because they aren't "smart" enough to see what humans can - phrases that are close in wording or structure but not identical to the source. Another example of this from Shelby Gem Factory: "These are chemically and physically indistinguishable of those unearthed. The man-made gemstones have a nearly flawless composition, because the factory controls the ingredients and cooking temperature. It is very rare to find flawless natural gems" vs "which are chemically and physically identical to stones dug from the ground. “Most of the gems we make are nearly flawless, because we control the ingredients and the cooking temperature,” Larry says. “It is rare to find a flawless natural ruby". There needs to be some more significant rewriting here. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Semiconductor technology" section is rather close to FN6 still, and the Factory article generally needs copy-editing before it will be mainpage ready. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: I have removed the "Semiconductor technology" section on Larry's article and am doing copyediting on the Factory article.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Semiconductor technology" was totally rewritten by me and I put it into the Factory article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Semiconductor technology" was moved back to Larry's article by me.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Need a second opinion / recheck. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I've started to look at it but I've run out of time for today. The 2nd part of ALT1 fails because it's backed by a paid advertisement (I just updated the article to reflect this [1]). If this issue can be fixed, then a comma will need to be inserted after "(pictured)". I did not have time to review the two articles for BLP issues, close paraphrasing, or NPOV. I did NOT check the image for a "rollover caption". If these issues are addressed and the areas I didn't check are reviewed and pass, then I think we will be good to go. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@Davidwr: Removed the reference you are referring to. We are going with ALT2, so have struck original hook and ALT1. @Davidwr: Thanks for starting the review.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I've been pre-occupied. If others could pick up where I left off we could finish this off sooner. Please don't wait on my account. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I hesitate to get involved in such a long-standing nomination, but my main objection is to the proposed ALT2 hook, and all the others. The statement is cited to a single paragraph article in "Pure Michigan", a site promoting tourism in Michigan. How does this site know the statement is true? It is not an expert in gemmology but has presumably been told the fact by the company. It is not a reliable source for the fact, and I suggest you propose an entirely different hook that does not make world-related claims. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The Pure Michigan source "Shelby Man-Made Gemstone Factory". Pure Michigan. Michigan Economic Development Corporation. 2015. Retrieved September 3, 2015. was already removed. But I am putting in back, as I think that the government does have its own vetting process. You apparently find inconvenient Zoladz, Chris (Feb 14, 2013). "Made in Michigan: The Shelby Gem Factory". Lakeshore News Top Headlines. WZZM television station. Retrieved September 3, 2015. The company makes a wider variety of gem stones than any other company in the world. It corroborates what Pure Michigan said. The Company's website includes: “We REALLY are the only company in the world that actually makes uncut gems, facets them, mounts them in gold... There are many companies who say they make synthetic gems, and say they make jewelry, but we know of no one else that actually does it all. All the ones we know about buy already faceted gems and have their jewelry made in China, Korea, India or Thailand.” "Shelby Gem Factory Home page". Shelby Gem Factory. Retrieved November 6, 2015. These corroborate the WZZM citation. Other than mere speculation, do you have anything to suggest that this is wrong? WP:Verifiability and WP:RS should control, not WP:Truth. Or should we take your word for it? The hooks are put up and amended, and the sources vetted. We appear to be chasing pots of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Or come up with your own hook. Enough already. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
@Fram: Its the claim "makes more varieties of man-made gemstones than any factory in the world?" that concerns me. You need a world perspective to say this, and I doubt any Michigan-based news source has this. I think this is the sort of hook that Fram objects to, so I am inviting him to comment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The claim "makes more varieties of man-made gemstones than any factory in the world" is actually very narrowly and specifically tailored. Cf., there are larger Synthetic diamond factories and sales centres, for example. See Mobbs, Emily (July 16, 2013). "World's largest synthetic diamond centre opens". Jeweller Magazine. Retrieved November 6, 2015.. So the claim is not as extraordinary as you may think. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The local news sources used in the article are not adequate for the ALT2 hook fact. The information they provide has been supplied by Kelly {see the video in ref1) and none of the sources has a global perspective on the synthetic gem industry. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
You have provided no sources to the contrary. Indeed, you have a bare assertion that the sources are "inadequate" and "none of the sources has a global perspective on the synthetic gem industry" you have provided zero sources to support your unsupported claim.
You have not provided a contrary "global perspective."
The hook is WP:Verifiable not WP:Truth; there is nothing to suggest that this narrow hook ("most types of synthetic gems" is wrong; and WP:Truth and "global perspective" are not the test.
In any event, alternate hooks that you would find satisfactory would be appreciated. You were prompted before I ask again.. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it is up to you to find a reliable source for the fact not for me to disprove it. If I suggest an alternative hook, you will need another reviewer, while if you suggest a satisfactory one, I will be able to wind up the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Alt 3 ... that Larry Kelly founded Shelby Gem Factory (pictured), which at one site grows uncut cultured gems, including diamonds, facets them, and mounts them in gold? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Cwmhiraeth: We have come up with an Alt 3 suggestion - will that work for you? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • These two articles were new enough when nominated and are long enough. The Alt3 hook facts have inline citations and the image is appropriately licensed. The articles are neutral and do not have policy issues. Good to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Shelby_Gem_Factory&oldid=995427905"