Talk:Majestic Radios/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 00:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@JGHowes: I have been working on this review, but it would help to have clarification on the intended scope of the article. From the first sentence, Majestic Radios was an American radio brand from 1927 to 1955, ..., this is an article about a product and a brand, the Majestic Radio. In this way, it could be similar to articles about, say, Lava (soap) or Dial (soap), products/brands that have undergone some technical evolution in features and multiple changes of ownership. The categories for such an article would involve ones like Category:Consumer electronics brands and Category:Products introduced in 1927. And the soap articles just link to the articles about the owners and don't go into greater detail about those companies.

However, from the fact that Grigsby-Grunow is bolded in the lede, and thus the target of a redirect, and from the amount of financial and other detail given about it, it seems that the article is also about a company, the Grigsby-Grunow Company. Such an article would have categories like Category:Companies based in Chicago and Category:1921 establishments in Illinois and Category:1934 disestablishments in Illinois and Category:Automotive part retailers of the United States and Category:Electronics companies of the United States and various others.

But then from the fact that Majestic Radio & Television is bolded in the lede, and from the amount of financial and other detail given about it, it seems that the article is also about the Majestic Radio & Television Corporation as well. So the article would have additional categories about it, especially for the establishment and disestablishment dates of 1936 and 1949.

Whether the article is also trying to be about the Wilcox-Gay company as well is unclear – that name is not bolded in the lede but is bolded later on in the article body.

The thing is, the decision about what the scope of the article is affects the evaluation of GAN criteria 3a and 3b (addressing main aspects, staying focused on subject). If the article is about just the product/brand, then the company names should not be bolded but instead should be links to separate articles. An explanation of how the Majestic Radio product made the Grigsby-Grunow Company very successful certainly belongs here, but the exact details of its stock prices and splits and so forth can go into the company article.

On the other hand, if the article is also about the companies, which I think is the intent at least for the first two, then there are some additions that need to be made to fully reflect those companies' histories. For instance, per this Time story, Grigsby-Grunow set up Majestic Household Utilities, which made refrigerators; that has no mention here. And per this journal paper, Majestic Radio & Television Corporation set up Majestic Records, a label for pop and jazz music; that also has no mention here.

So let me know what the article's scope is intended to be, and that can guide the review. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: Thanks for undertaking this review. As to scope, perhaps a bit of background would be helpful, as one thing led to another and the resulting approach. When I was writing the Harriet Lee (singer) article, that led to a stub, The Majestic Theater of the Air. Seeing that Wikipedia had no articles about Grigsby-Grunow or Majestic Radio, I then made these edits and wrote the article about the Majestic Radio brand and its various iterations. Because Wikipedia had no company articles on Grigsby-Grunow, Majestic Radio & Television, and Wilcox-Gay, it seemed to me the best approach was to create Majestic Radios about the brand, with re-directs from the three manufacturers that made it as the common thread. A SPINOUT to three separate company articles would raise notability and article length concerns, to my mind. So what I've now done is add the content and sources you found, along with others, to more fully reflect those companies' histories. —  JGHowes  ^talk 13:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@JGHowes: Okay, makes sense and sounds good. I will proceed with doing the review. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is the full review:

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):

   Some writing and MoS issues in the text, see below

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   One cite missing, some formatting issues, see below

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   A few areas where a little more explanation would help, see below

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

   Couple of image matters, see below

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Much improved since the scope was clarified and the article expanded.

Re writing and MoS issues:

Per WP:NCCORP, I think the boldings of the company names in the lede should be to the full legacy name of the company. So it would be the Grigsby-Grunow Company, the Majestic Radio & Television Corporation, and the Wilcox-Gay Corporation.

But the bolding of the company names as redirect targets is only done in the lede; it doesn't get repeated in the article body.

 Done

in 1934 during the Depression, - the text as well as the link should be to the Great Depression.

 Done, removed piped link

in the 1930s–1940s - I think this is usually written '1930s and 1940s'.

 Done

n 1927, Grigsby-Grunow began ... - start a new paragraph here, since the previous paragraph is background.

 Done

with a 9" speaker and with a 12" speaker - these should use 'inch' rather than '"' and should also give a metric conversion, such as: with a 9-inch (23 cm) speaker.

 Done

... with their typically poor selectivity, hooked up to a battery and producing inferior sound ... - this part of the sentence doesn't parse well to me and it isn't clear what role the choice of power source plays in the quality of the sound.

 Done, reworded

Grigsby-Grunow sponsored The Majestic Theater of the Air on the CBS radio network - needs a one- or two-word description of what this program aired - drama, music, variety format? - so that the reader doesn't have to click through to find that most basic information.

 Done

40% market share - use 'percent' instead, per MOS:PERCENT.

 Done

in October, 1928, In a March, 1930, review, etc - most people would write these without interior commas, but I guess this is okay too.

at Naval Air Station, Lakehurst (NJ), - the 'NJ' is awkward like this. I think it can be omitted, since what state this was in doesn't matter to the point being made.

 Done

and was called "the sensation of the Chicago Exchange" - called by whom? Either give an in-text attribution or replace with a paraphrase.

 Done

a share purchased at $40 in 1928 had risen to $1,100 in value - it isn't clear when this peak was reached. By inference from the previous sentence it was in 1930, but that would be after the stock market crash.

 Done, clarified it was pre-Crash high in 1929

due to "several new mechanical features" - is this quote from their advertising or from some writer?

 Done, clarified the above

As the Depression worsened - doesn't need to be linked again, or if it is, the text should be 'Great Depression'

 Done

The model 161 (pictured) - would be better to say '(pictured at top)', since the nearest image to this text is of something else.

 Done

"Majestic Radio & Television" Years (1936–1949) - Quotes not necessary in this header and 'years' should be downcase.

 Done

Despite the collapse of Grigsby-Grunow, Majestic Radios continued to be made through subsequent corporate ownership changes and reorganizations ... - This sentence is awkward where it is, since it is about not just this section but the next. Maybe it should be adapted for use in the lede instead of here?

 Done, point well-taken, moved and re-worded

for another nineteen years. - isn't this 1936 (new company formed) to 1958 (production stopped in Michigan), which is twenty-two years not nineteen?

 Done, corrected to 22.

The Majestic Radio & Television company was formed - I think it was known as a Corporation not a company and it should be capitalized.

 Done

"goodwill" - this is a well-known financial/accounting term, so I don't think it needs to be in quotes.

 Done

Re citing and footnoting:

When the bankruptcy court rejected its reorganization plan, Grigsby-Grunow was forced into liquidation in June, 1934. - needs a cite. Would also be interesting to know why their plan was rejected.

 Done, added cite

... Brooklyn Daily Eagle. AP. June 17, ... - I think it is better to spell out 'Associated Press' here, otherwise it tends to get visually lost and some foreign readers may not be familiar with just 'AP'.

 Done

Two other Brooklyn Daily Eagle cites (fn 18 and fn 19) don't have url's to the article or credits to Newspapers.com (assuming that's where they were found).

This is also true of a number of other old newspaper cites, such as fn 1, fn 7, fn 9, fn 10, etc. If they were found in Newspapers.com or ProQuest or Gale or some other online service that has given access to Wikipedia contributors, the cites should be have url's and credits. On the other hand, if they were found by visiting a local library's microfiche collection or were found in a scrapbook or whatever, then they are okay as they are.

 Done url's added to online cites

The footnotes are inconsistent about using 'New York Times' or 'The New York Times' and about whether it is linked.

 Done, now consistently The New York Times and linked

Re broad coverage issues:

the Grigsby-Grunow company had started in 1921 as a maker of automotive accessories - were they successful at this? What kind of accessories did they sell? How big was their selling area? If Grigsby-Grunow was only in business for 13 years, then this pre-radios period was about half of that. So even if it's not what they are now remembered for, it could use a little more description than it has here.

Reply: there's very little info. from reliable sources, although I found a few snippets of info. on blogs and self-pub webpages, such as although I added sources that they made sun visors for cars and battery eliminators, distributed nationally. Also that in the early years it was "Grigsby-Grunow-Hinds". I've also added William Lear to the article, with a source that verifies he worked with Grigsby-Grunow-Hinds on the battery eliminators. but because it's unsourced, I haven't added it to this article.

with installment purchase plans offered by many dealers - is this the Majestic dealer network that is made reference to much later in the article? Or just dealers in general? What was the Grigsby-Grunow approach towards retail sales? And what about repair people if there were problems, how did Grigsby-Grunow handle that?

Reply: clarified that it was dealers in general. G-G did not sell direct: they worked through regional distributors who wholesaled to retailers such as radio stores and department stores. After bankruptcy, the trustees endeavored to keep parts and service manuals available; added content.

Did the Majestic Household Utilities subsidiary do well? Poorly? Were the refrigerators they made thought well of from an engineering perspective?

Reply: no independent reviews were found, although there's plenty of paid advertising puffery. From blogs and self-pub sources, they seemed to be well-made. They folded when G-G went out of business.

The 1936 Brooklyn Eagle source shows that 'Television' was indeed part of the new Majestic company's name right from the start. This seems unusually forward-thinking, since the first U.S. electronic television broadcasting was still three years into the future. Are there any sources that comment upon this?

Reply: As early as 1931, experimental mechanical television was getting a lot of publicity in the U.S. (see my article Harriet Lee (singer)). Mechanical television was soon discarded in anticipation of the cathode ray tube's commercial introduction in the U.S., which had already started in Germany by 1936. So evidently Majestic planned to get into the new technology, but I find no specific source that comments on their corporate thinking. In any case, it appears that they never made TV's

Majestic Radio & Television reorganized again after filing for bankruptcy on October 24, 1939. - the article doesn't explain what led up to this failure.

Reply: have clarified and expanded this prose

as well as the lack of success in television manufacturing. - other than the company name, this is the first indication the article has given that they were trying to make televisions too. It could use a little elaboration.

Reply: see above

Otis Boykin and George Switzer (mineralogist) both worked for Majestic Radio & Television Corporation at some point, anything worth adding to the article around them?

 Done

You have added categories for the Grigsby-Grunow Company but not for the other two. One way to avoid having this become completely confusing is to have only categories for the radio product/brand in this article, and then edit that company's main redirect's file and place the company categories there. Such redirects-with-categories appear in italics in the category's view.

 Done

Re images:

The 1947 Majestic portable radio image looks really washed out, especially compared to the original on Flickr which has rich, deep color.

 Done, reverted to original Flickr version

File:Pair of Vintage Cast Iron Majestic Radio Banks, Modeled After a 1930s Majestic Radio Console (8568507531).jpg might be worth including, since it shows how the Majestic name and look were esteemed enough to base other objects on.

 Done, added

So now that there is a full review, I'm now placing the nomination on hold. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R:, have gone over the above and made the necessary article improvements. Regards,  JGHowes  ^talk 18:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@JGHowes: The article is much more comprehensive now, good work. Here are a few follow-up/additional comments:

With the growing popularity of the new commercial broadcasting radio medium ... – with the moving around of text this sentence seems to have lost its source.

 Done, tweaked prose and added sources

Regarding the metric equivalents, it is usually better to use the {{convert}} template for these, i.e. {{convert|9|in|cm|0|adj=on}} speaker and {{convert|12|in|cm|0|adj=on}} speaker.

 Done

A number of credits to Newspapers.com are still missing, for example fn 1, fn 2, fn 9, just to name the first three.

Please clarify what is missing; url's were added to fn 1, fn 2, fn 9, and all others. Is it just "via=Newspapers.com" that should be added? If so, I've now done so.

Also for what it's worth, I don't think retrieval dates (and the visual clutter they bring) are necessary for Newspapers.com sources – these are facsimile images of the original print editions and they aren't going to change over time. The same holds true to full-page images or pdf's from the New York Times archive. But editor opinions vary.

 Done have deleted

Early in his career, inventor Otis Boykin began working for the company as a laboratory assistant, eventually becoming plant foreman. – this needs a source. This museum page would probably do if you can't find anything stronger.

 Done

keeping aircraft radio frequencies functioning properly – it isn't clear what this means – was he making sure that radio transmitters emitted signals at exactly the intended frequency? Or that radio receivers could be accurately tuned to the desired frequency? Or something else?

 Done

This article can have Category:Models of radios added. And I would also think that Category:1958 disestablishments in the United States can be added as well (there doesn't seem to be a 'Products abandoned in YYYY' to match the 'Products introduced in YYYY' categories).

 Done

I see you've got categories on both the Grigsby-Grunow and the Grigsby-Grunow-Hinds redirects. I think they should only be on the Grigsby-Grunow one, since that is the "main" redirect. In other words, if someone is looking at Category:1934 disestablishments in Illinois, they should see only one italics entry that is a redirect to this article, not two. (You did follow this practice is only putting categories into one of the Majestic Radio & Television redirects.)

 Done

Anyway, these items shouldn't be too much additional work. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: Thanks again for the further observations, which I've now addressed. By the way, I was unaware that ProQuest is now available at the Wikipedia Library, thanks for letting me know!  JGHowes  ^talk 19:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@JGHowes: Everything looks good now, I've passed it for GA. Nice work again – it's kind of four articles in one. And I only found out about ProQuest being available a few days ago myself, so maybe its addition was recent. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)