Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Welding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welding

This is a self-nom – I've been working on this article for almost 2 months now, and it has come a long way. It went through peer review for a couple weeks and I got a few good suggestions. I think that this article is close to featured status, so here's the nomination. I'm planning to be around pretty much this week, so give me suggestions for improvement and I'll see what I can do. Thanks. --Spangineer ∞ 12:39, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

The peer review page is here, and here you can see how the article has improved since March. --Spangineer ∞ 12:51, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Support - Great introduction, comprehensive coverage of the subject, and a good number of external links and references for additional information. Ben Babcock 12:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object for now ; Overwhelming TOC and misuse of the 'main article' format (stub sections). Main article summaries in survey article sections should be at least twice the size of the corresponding lead section in the linked-to main article (meaning that they are almost always inappropriate for sub-sections). Thus simple inline links within larger sections are fine at this level. A separate types of welding article would be interesting once that part of this article gets expanded enough (the ==Second level== sections in such an article could then each be long enough to have the main article format for each type). Also, where are the inline citations? --mav 16:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Has a standard and easy to use inline citations method been developed? I looked around a number of weeks ago but didn't really find anything that looked easy to implement. I'm not too excited about going through and having to renumber all my references when I add something to the top of the article. Also, just to make sure I understand what you're saying, a types of welding article would have several paragraphs on each of the individual processes, but wouldn't have all the general welding stuff (costs, safety, weldability, etc.). And in that case, a better format for the welding article might be:
    

==Welding methods==

===Arc welding===

Several paragraphs on different arc welding processes here

===Gas welding===

A paragraph on gas welding here

===Resistance welding===

Several paragraphs on different resistance welding processes here

etc, etc.

--Spangineer ∞ 21:11, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Footnote3 does automatic numbering (you just have to add your new reference in order, no renumbering). Please verify if that is appropriate for your needs. If not, there are other options such as invisible notes. Mozzerati 22:30, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

• • That looks awesome – I'll get to work. --Spangineer ∞ 02:59, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Template:Inote is even easier. See the edit page of history of the Grand Canyon area. --mav 16:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
      • yes, it is easier and doesnt destroy the article like the footnotes. Plus, it has a big advantage, people start not to argue at you because they dont agree, in their ignorance, in controversial issues. It is in fact a good idea!!! I'm using it! I hope it will be used in other wikis, if not i'll comment it on the Port. lang one. -Pedro 20:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I made some major revisions to the history section, adding info from a new source and putting in footnotes. Please take a look at the notes section and let me know what you think of the format. I wasn't sure if I should do it like a normal paper (which would just eliminate the references section and put all the info in the footnotes) or like the way I did it. Any suggestions, let me know. Are there any examples of articles that use a "proper" footnote layout? --Spangineer ∞ 04:32, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Personally I think that the way you have done it is the best way. It's much better to only give the reference once and the page numbers in a short form. Mozzerati

I think I'm going to go with the inotes, because otherwise there's going to be a note section with more than a hundred references by the time I'm done. If you think any specific piece of info needs a real footnote, I'd be happy to set it up that way, but for now I'm just going to set everything up using inotes and go from there. --Spangineer ∞ 16:47, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

• • OK folks, I finished the inotes, did some rewriting, condensed the sections, and removed the main article stuff. Any more problems? --Spangineer ∞ 23:20, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Object — A very good article, but it has too many subsections. I agree with Mav on the misuse of the headings and the main articles. Will support once mav's objections are taken care of.  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 09:03, May 10, 2005 (UTC) Comments: I feel that the headings can be shuffled around, with the promotion of the lower sections such as =types of welding= and demotion of =history= and =safety issues=. This would get the reader directly into the core of the topic.  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 05:32, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • When I was adding subsections, I put them in that order because I felt like the background should go first, and then the specifics on the processes should come afterwards. So I sort of think that things like the welding history, geometry and quality sections should stay at the top. Moving safety issues, costs, trends, and unusual conditions to the bottom would be fine with me. What do you think? --Spangineer ∞ 12:58, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

    I think the sections need to go to the bottom. Its better to get into the core of the topic by introducing only the essential parts beforehand. Safety issues, geometry and quality should come later. (Just like in a movie, you wouldn't want the hero to make an appearance midway).  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 19:43, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

    • What would you (and others) think about the following order – History, Welding processes, Geometry, Quality, Unusual conditions, Safety issues, Costs, and Trends. --Spangineer ∞ 00:58, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • I just reorganized the article according to the above order, and I integrated the shorter costs and trends sections into one larger section. --Spangineer ∞ 02:08, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry I couldn't reply earlier as I was ill. Yes, I think its better now. Good work.  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 20:14, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Query: In the last sentence of the introduction, does "both" refer to soldering and brazing, in which case in should read "these processes", or to all three processes, since you show that welding sometimes adds a filler? Sfahey 22:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The filler used in welding is not what provides the bond, but in brazing and soldering, it is. "Both" here refers to brazing and soldering, but I see your point – it has been switched to "These". --Spangineer ∞ 23:14, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - lead section needs to be expanded a bit. The first 'paragraph' is a single sentence and the third paragraph is rather short. A sentence or two on the different types of welding along with links to those articles is needed, IMO. A few more sentences on the history would also be good to have in the lead (esp when it was first used, the traditional use, and how that differs from today). Remember that the lead section should be treated as a concise encyclopedia article in its own right. More comments later as I read more. --mav 16:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The lead has been rewritten, including more history and using that as a base to include links to individual processes. I also added a few sentences here and there that refer to different sections in the document, such as =unusual conditions= and =safety=. Other suggestions? --Spangineer ∞ 20:24, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Great job. Support. --mav 01:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Support Great article. Maybe a few more nice illustrations would improve it. ike9898 01:22, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I haven't had much luck finding other good PD welding images. Some clear diagrams would be helpful too, but my drawing skills aren't that great yet. I'll keep working on it though. --Spangineer ∞ 03:56, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

The article is now well illustrated. Great job, whoever added these pics!ike9898 14:01, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Support, one of the best articles on a practical technology on Wikipedia --nixie 02:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC) Support. A thourough and accessable introduction to the subject. --Theo (Talk) 11:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)