In my opinion the content of Wikipedia on IWC right now is both unbalanced, hardly focussing on IWC as it is now, and at certain points incorrect. Yet, the English Wikipedia content was updated for the last time in the first week of February 2017, when looking right now (March 1, 2017).
Let me point out my comments about the sections of this content.
Introduction:
- Seems OK to me.
Summary at the top:
- As number of employees 309 is mentioned, I suggest to leave this out, as it will be incorrect all the time.
Motto:
- Seems OK to me.
History / Creation:
- Seems OK to me.
- The picture of a Grande Complication is out of place here.
History / Early stages:
- Seems OK to me, although it doesn't tell really much.
History / IWC and the Rauschenbach family:
- Seems OK to me, although this section is too long in my opinion.
History / Prominent technicians:
- This section seems to be out of place.
- At least two very important technicians are not mentioned: Albert Pellaton and Kurt Klaus. There should be a short description of their accomplishments.
- Are there technicians of the latest 30 years worth mentioning, or has this part of watchmaking become a team effort?
History / Electrical era:
- I'm not quite sure this short section has any significance, it could easily be left out.
History / 1900 - 1960:
- Important watches are not mentioned, like the Portuguese 325, the Mark XI, the Ingenieur, and a few more I forgot or don't know of. One or two pictures of them, and mentioning their merits would be great.
History / 1970 - present:
- What happened between 1960 and 1970?
- I think that splitting up this section makes sense: the quartz crisis as one section, the Da Vinci Perpetual Calendar and its follow-up as another one, the Georges Kern era as the latest section.
- Hardly anything of importance is mentioned about the latest 30 years. At least the 6 watch families (Pilot's watch, Portuguese, Ingenieur, Aquatimer, Da Vinci and Portofino) could be described shortly, with one or two recent pictures.
- Furthermore the new marketing concept, celebrities, could be mentioned.
Sales history:
- The first paragraph seems OK to me, although it could be left out as not being very essential.
- I'm not sure the second paragraph, about the inventory of parts, is correct anymore, it should be left out.
IWC movements:
- Much more is told about the ETA-based movements than about the in-house movements, which doesn't seem right to me.
- The meca-quartz movements, if still at all necessary to be mentioned, should not be mentioned in the section of in-house movements. I would leave them out, as they are not used anymore.
- The in-house movements, the pride of the manufacture, should be described in more detail. The current description is out of date, and certainly the perpetual calendar movement should be mentioned. At least one picture of it should be shown.
- There are no pocket watches produced anymore by IWC, this sentence should be removed.
On-line auction:
- This section should be renamed to Charity.
- As far as I know everything mentioned about this auction is in the past for quite some years now, but I don't know the status of it. Is Saint Exupéry still a charity activity of IWC? I would only mention what is happening now.
- Certainly in this section the current efforts on Laureus should be mentioned.
Publication:
- This section should be removed, as the Watch International magazine was discontinued several years ago.
- The yearly catalogue could be mentioned here, it really is beautiful and useful enough.
References:
- Of course this section depends very much on the previous sections.
All in all, the quality of this Wikipedia article is mixed, and really insufficient, not according to the quality standards that I associate with IWC. Even if IWC is not formally responsible for it, I would suggest that the Public Relations department of IWC takes a peek at it, maybe my remarks can help them to decide what to do about it.
Kind regards,
Paul
