Talk:Geotechnical investigation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject:Civil Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of civil engineering. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class. |
[edit] ASTM numbers
Are you sure you want those in each description? The numbers should be in the main articles, and they are in the references provided, but if you want them in there, I'll put them all in. It also opens the door to someone else putting in all of the British standard numbers and any other notable standard publication. I think its a little superfluous. Also, is the crushed rock ratio thing incorrect because I just took that from the article. Basar 03:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I know you're not talking to me, but I'll give my opinion for hte heck of it... I think listing the ASTM number is risky b/c this should be a 'worldly' article, and we would, then, need to keep track of the Brit system numbers etc. Perhaps, we can keep the ASTM list on that article, ASTM International, and just 'See also' that. --Zuejay 04:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think the ASTM numbers should stay, but that references to the ASTM website aren't so good. External links to sites where you have to pay for the information are not good. Having the ASTM number in the text creates a citation. I'm not too worried about people adding in the British Standard or DIN or ISO equivalents, as long as it's done neatly. Argyriou (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and the crushed rock thing from the CBR? I too it out because it's too much detail. That belongs in the CBR article. Argyriou (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Not good? Pay sources are fine and acceptable seeing that we don't have any other references now (WP:CITE). How would "citing" the ASTM number in the text be any different anyway? Furthermore, I rewrote those paragraphs just so that most of the information could be verified in the reference. All of that information is available for free since ASTM gives you the opening section of each standard. I wrote them based off of what I read, for the most part. It seems pertinent to me to know what the CB ratio is a ratio of. Basar 01:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Under the circumstances, the pay-website references are acceptable. I didn't remember that the website gives the opening sections (we have a full set at work, so I never actually look them up on the web). Also, I should apologize for my laziness - I didn't notice how the references ended up formatted; they actually address some of my objections, since the ASTM number is right up front. (That was not obvious from perusing the diffs, but I should have looked at the article, not just the diffs.)
- Not good? Pay sources are fine and acceptable seeing that we don't have any other references now (WP:CITE). How would "citing" the ASTM number in the text be any different anyway? Furthermore, I rewrote those paragraphs just so that most of the information could be verified in the reference. All of that information is available for free since ASTM gives you the opening section of each standard. I wrote them based off of what I read, for the most part. It seems pertinent to me to know what the CB ratio is a ratio of. Basar 01:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- OK, I understand and accept your apology. I think we can move on to other parts of the article; I was thinking that it would be nice to make one of the geotech articles a featured article, and this article seems like it might be a good candidate. It may be a bit bold, but I think we could do it. Basar 05:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
