Talk:Early glassmaking in the United States

Glass making back then

Omg I really didn't know this. It is really cool to see how people did things back then compared to what we do now. AnimeLearner (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Needs improvement

This article needs improvement—maybe someday I will get around to it. The New England Glass Company, Deming Jarves, the impact of tariffs, Bakewell Glass, Benjamin Bakewell, Pittsburgh as a glassmaking center, pressed glass, J. H. Hobbs, Brockunier and Company, William Leighton Sr., and the discovery of the long-lost soda-lime formula for glass are all topics that should be addressed. All of this happened by 1865. TwoScars (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

This article has been improved and discusses glassmaking through 1700. A new article will be created that discusses 18th Century glassmaking in the United States. TwoScars (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

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:Early glassmaking in the United States/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 22:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Lead

• Early glassmaking in the United States, covered herein as before the 18th century (or through 1700), began before the country existed

• Please avoid MOS:SELFREF (covered herein) and rephrase. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• I'm going to need some help here. Covering the entire 18th century would make a huge Wikipedia article, and an 18th century glassmaking in the United States already exists. I am currently replacing that sentence with "Early glassmaking in the United States began in the 17th century before the country existed." There is some info (two paragraphs) on the 18th century at the end of the article, but I thought it would be good to clarify at the beginning that very little of the 18th century (and no 19th century) is covered. An alternative would be to simply replace "covered herein" with "defined". If I have missed your point, enlighten me. TwoScars (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Not to worry. The usual fix is to move it to hatnote. I can help you with this if you don't know how to do it. I will add {{About|Use1|Use2|Article2}}. If there is disagreement about this usage, it may be removed at any time. Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Added. Feel free to modify it to your preference. Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Made minor changes to the hat and to the first sentence. However, I can easily live with what you had there. TwoScars (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Early glassmaking in the United States began before the country existed. The glassmaking began in 1608 at the Colony of Virginia near Jamestown. The 1608 glass factory is believed to be the first industrial facility in what became the United States

• I've read the opening sentences about a dozen times now. I think it could be improved in several ways. I will provide just one example, although there are numerous ways to do it: "Early glassmaking in the United States began in Colonial America in 1608 at the Colony of Virginia near Jamestown. The 1608 glass factory is believed to be the first industrial facility in what would later become the United States." Viriditas (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Made change. TwoScars (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• The 1608 glass factory is believed to be the first industrial facility in what became the United States. Skilled Polish and German (described as "Dutchmen") workers were brought to the colony to begin the glassmaking.

• I would avoid parentheticals in the lead as it slows down the reader. Perhaps think about rephrasing it without needed it. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Reworded. TwoScars (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Glass works in New Amsterdam and the Colony of Massachusetts Bay are often mentioned by historians.

• I think it is unnecessary to attribute this to historians here. We are, after all, talking about history, so naturally, when we write about history, we will be using historians as our sources. It just feels redundant. Instead, talk about *why* these two glass works were significant. Viriditas (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Reworded, dropped "historians", mentioned that two of the Dutch glass works atmay have conducted small–scale operations for decades. TwoScars (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• More glassmaking began in the 18th century, but by 1800 it is thought that there were only about ten glass works producing in the United States.

• As a reader, this had me wondering why. In 1800, the census recorded 5.3 million people, of which 894,000 were slaves. Was glass imported from elsewhere, or were most Americans using materials other than glass? I wonder if more could be said about whatever the issue was, whether it was a difficult technology to get going or something else? I don't know if this is true, but I recall reading some time ago that when the Roman Empire fell, one of the things the world lost was complex and elegant glassmaking on a large scale. Was the reverse at work here, in other words, with the US being a new country, what stood in the way of glassmaking getting off the ground as a large and vibrant industry? Why only ten glass works in 1800? Was that enough for 5.3 million people? Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Added "Major obstacles to glassmaking in the United States were imports, labor with glassmaking knowledge, and raw materials necessary to make the glass."

It looks like you go into this elsewhere, but it's still not entirely clear, although I think the challenges of producing glass in the early colonies and the nascent republic could be expressed a bit more forcefully or explicitly. For example, there appears to have been an issue of basic resource utilization and skilled, technical labor, particularly the problem of fueling the works and obtaining trade secrets of the glass industry. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Glassmaking

• Glass is made by starting with a batch of ingredients, melting it together, forming the glass product, and gradually cooling it. The batch of ingredients is dominated by sand, which contains silica.

• Having read this section several times now, a few things stand out: 1) the framing should be changed to reflect the historical context instead of a "this is how glass is made" framing. An example of the historical framing and context that it should use are found in this external link in the article. Notice the difference: "At Jamestown, glass was produced from silica in sand on the shores of the James River and alkali from limestone and potash. After these materials were gathered, they were cleaned by either washing or extreme heating. The freshly cleaned materials were then liquefied in the furnace, which was fueled by wood from the surrounding area. These furnaces reached up to 2,080 Fahrenheit which enabled the silica and alkali to form into crystals. It was then melted into a molten material ready to be blown into a finished piece." Viriditas (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Added sentence "At Jamestown, sand from the James River was used for its silica, and the plentiful woods nearby provided fuel for furnaces." Remember that the glassmakers elsewhere certainly did not use the James River. It was difficult to find good quality sand, and it would not surprise me if the New Amsterdam glassmakers used imported sand. TwoScars (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• One of the major expenses for the glass factories is fuel for the furnace...Other important aspects of glassmaking are labor and transportation....Glassmaking methods and recipes were kept secret, and most European countries forbid immigration to the United States by glassworkers...Some of the skilled glassworkers were smuggled from Europe to the United States....Waterways provided transportation networks before the construction of highways and railroads.

• Some of this material is important enough to mention in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Lead now has "For centuries, glassmaking procedures and recipes were kept secret." in the first paragraph; and "17th and 18th century glassworks were typically located near water for transportation purposes and wooded areas for fuel." in the second paragraph. TwoScars (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

English colonies

• Furnaces using coal for fuel were still in early stages of development.

• The prose in this section is a bit rough and choppy. When you are talking about the furnaces using coal for fuel, are you referring to the colonies or to England? Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Changed to "While England would eventually develop the first glassmaking furnace powered by coal, that was still in the early stages of development.[24] The fuel problem caused England to be dependent on Venice and other cities in Europe...." Also added a new reference. On page 30 of "Glass Furnaces Through the Ages" it says "All the furnaces hitherto described were fired by wood. It fell to England in the sixteenth century, with the onset of rapid deforestation and the consequent dread of depriving the Navy of timber, to develop the use of coal for this purpose. The sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries were filled with the clamor of rival patentees....." "...sufficient progress had been made by 1615...." TwoScars (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Captain John Smith's writing (sometimes with questionable spelling) discussed the difficulties of making glass in the colony.

• You really don't need these parentheticals. But if you think you do, I would recommend adding a footnote instead or modifying the type of "writing". Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Replaced the parentheses with commas. TwoScars (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Captain John Smith's writing...The site of the Jamestown glass works was described by Captain John Smith

• Generally, the convention is to spell out the full name with the first use, then to use the last name in the subsequent use, provided it is in the same section. So maybe use "Smith" in the second instance here. This is because we already know who he is when you mention him a second time. Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Dropped "Captain John" from its second use. (I have always been hesitant to use a plain "Smith", "Jones", or "Lee".) TwoScars (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Although this attempt to produce glass cannot be called a long–term success

• I believe "long–term success" uses a hyphen, not a dash. In other words, "long-term success". Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hyphen is in. TwoScars (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Northern colonies

• The Melyer family is believed to have continued making glass into the third and fourth generations, leading one to deduct that, if true, glass may have been made at this glass works in Manhattan from 1645 to about 1767.

• Language is too informal and unnecessary here. I would delete "leading one to deduct that". Many ways to do this, but one way is like this: "The Melyer family is believed to have continued making glass into the third and fourth generations. If true, glass may have been produced in Manhattan from 1645 to about 1767." Viriditas (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Made change. TwoScars (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Future glassmaking

• after the American Revolution during the 18th century...In the Province of New Jersey, Wistar's glass works was the first to achieve large–scale long–term success

• Link to American Revolution. Large-scale, long-term success. Use a comma. I see you aren't using hyphens but dashes? Is this a regional style thing? Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Linked and added comma. The dashes are the Wikipedia en and em dashes that come up when editing. If those are not used, a bot will eventually replace any hyphens used from one's keyboard. The MOS is confusing on that issue. Is there something I am missing in hyphen vs en dash? I know an en-dash normally connects a value in a range, while a hyphen joins words—I just did not think Wikipedia allowed hyphens. TwoScars (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  See MOS:HYPHEN and the two subsequent sections that come after it. Viriditas (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Note, I think your confusion comes from the use of dashes instead of hyphens when it comes to article titles. That would explain it. Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Changed to hyphen: "small-scale" in lead; "German-speaking" in footnote under Jamestown; "glasse-men" under Jamestown; "long-term" under Jamestown; "Glass-makers" under Northern colonies; "German-immigrants", "large-scale" and "long-term" under Future glassmaking. (still not real clear to me) TwoScars (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Over one dozen glass works operated in the United States (or what would become the United States) during the 18th century

• Again, I would remove the parenthetical remark and rewrite it. Maybe just say "in the British colonies and after the American Revolution", or something like that? Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Made change. TwoScars (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• In the Province of New Jersey, German–immigrant Caspar Wistar's glass works was the first to achieve large–scale long–term success. Another German immigrant, Henry William Stiegel, was the first in America to make fine lead crystal, which is often mislabeled as flint glass. A third German immigrant, John Frederick Amelung, invested more money in glassmaking than anyone ever had and produced impressive quality glass with engraving—but his business failed after 11 years.

• A lot of unnecessary word repetition here. The way to handle it is to introduce it in the first sentence once, which then avoids repeating " German–immigrant" three times. Many ways to do this, but here's just one example: "German immigrants Caspar Wistar, Henry William Stiegel, and John Frederick Amelung contributed to new innovation, investment, and development of the American glass industry: Wistar's glass works was the first to achieve large–scale long–term success; Stiegel was the first in America to make fine lead crystal, which is often mislabeled as flint glass; and Amelung invested more money in glassmaking than anyone ever had before, producing impressive quality glass with engraving, but his business failed after 11 years." There's no one way to do this, but I think repeating "German immigrant" three times isn't necessary. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Reworded so "German–immigrant" is used only one time.

• Added another paragraph under Future glassmaking that discussed the problems facing American glassmakers and why there were only 10 in 1800. It mentions labor & secrets, imports of English glassware, and English control of red lead. TwoScars (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• It looks like I have caught up, but I would like to take another look this afternoon—plus you may have more comments. TwoScars (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Viriditas: OK, now I think I have caught up. I added more under Future glassmaking, and now I am worried that I have added too much. TwoScars (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  @TwoScars: It's always better to to add too much, because it is easy to remove what isn't needed. It's far more difficult when you add too little, because then you have to spend more time on coming up with additional prose. So you did the right thing. I will try to finish this up tonight or tomorrow. Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'm around today if there are any issues. TwoScars (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  @TwoScars: Just a courtesy ping to let you know I'm working on a final review now. Viriditas (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Viriditas: I will have no problems altering any prose, and if you want to make changes yourself—no problem. There are some things that I "take for granted" that a person without my experience may not be as familiar with, and there are plenty of people that are just plain better writers. No problems here. Let me know. TwoScars (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  Not to worry. Still doing a read through. So far, I'm seeing some repetition and informal language. Could you take a look at the lead and figure out a way not to repeat "1608" in the second instance, and maybe remove the word "too" or reword? There's also a lot of instances of "United States" in sentence after sentence. Maybe try and cut that down by alternating synonyms like "country" or some other word. It's up to you, of course, but that's what immediately stuck out to me as a reader. Still working on this... Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  I fixed some of this. Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• All good. TwoScars (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Footer

• {{Glass makers and brands}}

• I'm not convinced this is a relevant template for a history article. Viriditas (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Removed. TwoScars (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Final thoughts

• @TwoScars: I think we are getting to the end here. Aside from the prose, I think it comes close to meeting the GA criteria at this point. Because the article is so dense, I do want to do one final read through because I'm worried I may have missed a few spots. If I don't find anything concerning, I hope to have this passed today or tonight. One thing I was wondering about, did you intend to write this in British English or some other variant? Viriditas (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for spending so much time on this. Remember, I still have no problem rewording anything. I do not plan to write this article in British English or some other variant, since I am working on a totally new article called "19th century glassmaking in the United States" and two companion articles: "19th Century glassmaking innovations in the United States" and "19th century glass categories in the United States" (currently all in sandboxes). I also have a military history article that will be reviewed for GA later this month. TwoScars (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

    Got it. Viriditas (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

    • Postmortem: Looking deeper into this, it looks like the article was originally written in Australian English, hence my question about the variant. Since this did not appear to concern you, I changed the variant to American English, not intentionally of course, but due to my edits. In the future, if you wish to preserve a singular version of the language, leave a message on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   MOS:SELFREF. See comments above.

   Prose is likely passable, but rough in spots.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No issues detected

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Superb use of images.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

With the permission of the nominator, I made a series of mosty minor edits to fix the prose. The nominator is welcome to correct or adjust them to their preference. Well done. Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

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.