Talk:J.H. Williams Tool Group

Clean-up

The article have some of the missing links and unnecessarily used external links as well as writing style need to be improved.

1. I don't know what you mean by "have some of the missing links." There aren't any broken links in the citations, if that's what you mean.
2. There are no unnecessary external links. The citations all support specific claims. The external links at the bottom provide more historical context than the article itself can provide (since they include original research and go into more detail than is appropriate for Wikipedia). They are useful, informative, neutral, and fall well within the guidelines in Wikipedia:External links.
3. What specifically is wrong with the writing style and how specifically should it be improved? It's brief and to the point. It is encyclopedic, neutral, and contains no grammatical errors (which is more than can be said for your one sentence critique).

The most obvious way the article can be improved is by lengthening it and providing more information. But that wasn't what you said.

Feel free to call for a clean-up again once you've spent a modicum of effort forming and justifying your criticisms here.

—typhoon (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)