Talk:Inland Steel Company/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: BoatnerdJenn (talk · contribs) 19:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 13:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article using the template below. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BoatnerdJenn, can you confirm you're around and have availability to respond to comments / make changes? Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am around and so is Recon Rabbit, who has also offered to help. Thank you! BoatnerdJenn (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, commencing review! Feel free to respond to comments as I make them, no need to wait until I've covered everything. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing my part as well... If I get anything wrong feel free to shout out @BoatnerdJenn. Currently responding to external link concerns. Recon rabbit 19:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	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. 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? Fourth external link is good (even great!) but should be given a few more words of description in the link. Some context was added.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues, pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	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.
	7. Overall assessment.