Talk:Shelby Gem Factory

"A natural diamond is made completely of carbon and will burn"

While it is true that it's possible to burn a real diamond, doing so requires specific conditions — a high-temperature torch and pure oxygen — while the statement by Kelley implies to non-scientists that diamonds might burn under ordinary circumstances and Shelby Gem Factory's simulated diamonds are thus preferable. As such, it's reading to me as more promotional than should be included in a Wikipedia article. We could add text clarifying how diamonds could burn (and that under those conditions any setting the diamond was in would melt away too) but that might be too off-topic. —GrammarFascist (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources and their reliability

You have removed the following: "Shelby Man-Made Gemstone Factory". Pure Michigan. Michigan Economic Development Corporation. 2015. Retrieved September 3, 2015. and in a note: “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. 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. This should all be put back. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't look promotional to me, but perhaps the editor care to explain why? Hafspajen (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't make you discuss this. See WP:BRD. I put it back. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Diamonds

Upon first reading, the article seems a bit unclear about whether the company makes actual synthetic diamonds or only diamond simulants. In my recent edits, I may have introduced some errors due to not knowing which is the case – please check, correct, and clarify as necessary. Incidentally, the claim that "As far as I know, we are the only company on Earth that uses the second method" (in reference to chemical vapor deposition as a method for producing gemstones) seems plainly false, at least when it comes to making diamond gemstones. See, for example, the List of synthetic diamond manufacturers, which lists several manufacturers that I believe use the CVD method to produce their diamonds. Gemesis, for example, produces diamonds of gem quality and mounts them in jewelry, and has the ability to use both the CVD and HPHT production methods. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• @BarrelProof: Thanks for your edits. However, your claim that these are "diamond simulants" needs a WP:RS. None of the sources in the article uses that phrase. Putting this in the most charitable light, until you have a source this looks like WP:OR or WP:Synth. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I question the claim and the addition to the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I notice that a cited source refers to "simulated diamonds", which is a term that refers to simulation, not synthesis, and thus means that these are not actual diamonds. The article also extensively discusses the company's involvement in cubic zirconia, which is a form of diamond simulant. I also found another source cited in the article that uses the term "simulated diamond", and I see the use of "simulated" used in various places on the company web site. I don't see any claims that these are actual (lab-grown) diamond material – they are just something that looks like diamond. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

BarrelProof, Thanks for straightening this out. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• I had the same problem, wondering about the Shelby diamonds.  The factory's FAQs page says that the inventor's diamonds are related to cubic zirconia.  To take the wondering away for readers, I added the MoHs table, which shows the Shelby diamond's MoH is 8.9.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• I agree that, as of 2012, Gemesis is synthesizing diamonds and retailing them in gold settings.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Gemesis doesn't seem to sell their diamonds retail anymore. The website has changed and doesn't show any jewelry for sale directly to consumers. It won't even provide retailer location information unless you fill out a form with your name and email contact information, and the website and other content I have found looks a bit stale. Former claims of being the world's largest maker and having capabilities to use two different processes for making diamonds seem to be absent from the site. Anyhow, lab-grown real diamonds are a different product than simulants, and we should be helping readers to understand the difference between the two. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Spelling

Out of curiosity I was just going through the latest edits to the article, and when I was looking at this edit, I noticed right after "nolink=yes", this word: "curiousity". I don't know if it is important to keep it the way it is, so I didn't change it, but it is spelled wrong. If anyone wants to change it, it should be "curiosity".  – Corinne (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, the Template:sic means that it was accurately transcribed from the original.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Other than diamonds

My understanding is that the rubies they produce are real ruby material – i.e., they have the same chemical and crystalline structure that is found in natural rubies (and in fact they are probably more pure than natural ruby). If that wasn't true, the synthesized ruby couldn't be used for lasers. And the factory's FAQ says "our rubies and sapphires are really ruby and sapphire". But the article doesn't seem very clear about which of the other "gems" they make are synthesized real material and which are simulants (i.e., something that looks similar but isn't chemically the same thing). Is a "Shelby Emerald" really emerald material, or is it just something that looks like emerald? How about the "Shelby Garnet"? (I notice that they list a different Mohs hardness scale rating for "Shelby Garnet" and "Genuine Garnet", so maybe that's a clue.) Then there's the same question for citrine, topaz, and aquamarine. (Apparently aquamarine is basically chemically the same as emerald.) Also, is it really proper to call something a "gem" if it is a "simulant"? —BarrelProof (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:Orphan

Except for user talk pages, this exists in splendid isolation. 16:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shelby Gem Factory/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 21:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Review in progress

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

---

This article is being put on a 7-day hold.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (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:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Copy changes

• There are numerous locations in the article that need tense changing to reflect the 2019 closure (e.g. is → was). This is probably the single largest content issue on the page.

History

• Jo Kelly should be Kelley.
•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Second paragraph could stand to be less choppy.
•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Factory

• Remove the emdash in the second sentence.
•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comma after "theater"
•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Set off "by then" in commas and then make "off limits" hyphenated
•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Gem manufacturing

• Consider combining the second and third sentences.
•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Other items

• I feel like there is something missing. Why did the factory close? How did the business evolve over the years? I'd love to know that but don't get that from this.
•  Done

• Watch tone in a few places which feels a touch promotional or overly positive.
•  Done

• Earwig mostly catches quotes in the article.
•  Done

• Practically every reference is archived.
•  Done

• Lots of great photos (some taken by Kelley in 2003!) which are all suitable for use. Some images do need alt tags.
•  Done

Comments

• @Sammi Brie: Thanks for review. I'll start working on the issues.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• @Sammi Brie: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Doug Coldwell: Almost there (made a few minor cleanup changes). This sentence I'd excise for tone: The factory's FAQ said "our rubies and sapphires are really ruby and sapphire!" Ping me when that is removed and I think this can be promoted. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Sammi Brie: =  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

See also WP:DCGAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)