Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shielded metal arc welding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Shielded metal arc welding

An article on one of the world's most common welding procedures, and one of the simplest. As a result, this article is somewhat shorter than the other two welding method FAs, GTAW and GMAW, both of which are more complex processes. I am of the opinion that this article is sufficiently comprehensive, but if you disagree, let me know what you believe should be added. --Spangineer (háblame) 17:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment/Weak Support - While this article does seem to be well referenced, one of the things I like about most articles in wikipedia is that I can instantly fact-check the article by clicking links to other internet sites. In this manner, I can determine for myself whether or not what I'm reading is true, or whether it has recently been the victim of "sneaky vandalism". Other than this, the article looks great to me, well written, all that. I learned quite a bit. Fieari 23:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm of the opposite opinion. Websites are cheap, and anyone can create them, but print references get much more verification. Furthermore, there is no online resource that I'm aware of that approaches the comprehensiveness and detail of this article, making it difficult to cite much at all. In any case, some of the references I've used (at least the Jeffus one) can be checked on Google books, and as that program continues to expand, more of them will be available there. Even so, I've added a couple external links that give good (but short) overviews of the process; let me know if that's sufficient. And, for what it's worth, I'll be watching this article like a hawk to keep sneaky vandalism from getting in. --Spangineer (háblame) 02:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh, by no means would I want the text sources REPLACED by web links. I just wanted a few in addition to the text sources, so I can quickly verify things. What has been added is plenty sufficent, and any mild reservations I had have been met, so I can now whole heartedly support this as a FA. Fieari 21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I actually prefer book sources— more authority. Books are used in the accademic world, even though the teachers might not have access to them for fact checking. Excellent work, Spangineer. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 02:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Everything appears to be in order. References and footnotes are used in line with current guidelines, layout is thoughtful and logical, picture copyright status is flawless, and the prose is well-written. RyanGerbil10 06:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The footnotes seem to be there to reference every single paragraph, yet the article is supposed to be about the basics of SMAW. Is every single paragraph about something overly complicated or controversial? If not, dump most of the notes. / Peter Isotalo 10:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Are they hurting anything? Some articles have 100+ footnotes to verify everything in the article, but I've done it with fewer than 25. I don't think any of this is "common knowledge", so I'd prefer to make sure the entire article is verifiable. And I don't think the footnotes greatly hurt readability—nearly all of them appear at the end of a paragraph, thereby not contributing an extra break in the prose. Please take a look at User:Spangineer/inline citations for my opinion related to inline citations. --Spangineer (háblame) 13:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Agree with Spangineer, having more footnotes is not a bad thing, and 25 footnotes isn't an exceptionable amount. AndyZ 13:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, it looks excellent, though I note a few sentences here and there that could use a copyedit. Some examples follow: Tuf-Kat 17:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • "However, they must be kept dry" - not immediately clear what "they" refers to, and that whole paragraph seems to have some needlessly complex sentences. (good work fixing this paragraph!)
    • "Typically, the equipment used for SMAW" -- why not "SMAW typically uses"
      • I've addressed these examples; hopefully the new text is an improvement. I'll keep an eye out for other issues, and will attempt to correct any other wording problems that anyone notices and mentions. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Support: The article twice mentions that nonferrous materials such as nickel and copper alloys may be welded by this process, but provides no further information. Could you add one or two more lines about this? I am guessing that electrodes with a mild steel core may not be appropriate for these metals, but the article is not clear about the existence of other types of electrodes. --Allen3 talk 00:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • A valid point, though one surprisingly not addressed to a great extent in my sources. I've added a new paragraph in the electrode section that talks about the composition of the electrode core, but I can't seem to find too much more information, especially related to the nonferrous materials. I suspect that that is due to the fact that the process is most frequently used for welding steels. --Spangineer (háblame) 05:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent work - I am just worried what you will do when we run out of welding topics :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, don't worry, there are plenty of topics to go—besides all of the processes, there's the equipment. However, I'm mostly limited to the topics for which we have good free-license pictures, and those are beginning to dwindle. I'm actually not sure what I'm going to work on next... --Spangineer (háblame) 05:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- Nichalp 07:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice work on another welding article! -Rebelguys2 03:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_candidates_Shielded_metal_arc_welding_6c2e.html"