Talk:Ball-on-three-balls test/GA1

GA review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Cathodography (talk · contribs) 00:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Ldm1954 (talk · contribs) 21:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I probably won't be the fastest! Ldm1954 (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in no rush whatsoever, but kindly pinging @Ldm1954: :) Cattos ^💭 19:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954: Any updates? Cattos ^💭 20:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First pass. Overall it looks OK, but some things needs cleaning.

There is some awkward phrasing which needs clarification as not everyone will understand. I have marked many of them
In a few places some Wikilinks to other pages on mechanical properties would be useful, maybe subsections.
In a few places you are using "weasel" words which are a bit vague. For instance "generally conducted" is weasel, and a reader could wonder about the "non-general" cases.
Alumina is going to be mechanically stable, but chemically? At STP little is going to react, it would presumably be a choice if the tests are done at elevated T.
Are they really "specialized" furnaces? Surely all you need is something big enough with some connectivity.
The page could definitely do with an image or two more. An obvious one is the Airy (or similar) stress, perhaps a few others.
I would be inclined to use the AI editor in Word. It may help with the construction of some of the sentences. Of course not ChatGPT!

Ldm1954 (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

N.B., my comment about using Microsoft Word was to have it make minor grammar and sentence construction suggestions. For a GA it think this level of attention is needed. For instance the phrase "were already in use but presented limitations related to stress uniformity" is a bit convoluted, I think something like " were already in use but were limited because of stress uniformity" is simpler. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954: I've responded to your prose suggestions. Cattos ^💭 14:48, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping by, I think the lead needs a definition of "biaxial strength" per the criteria of being written to be understandable to the widest possible audience; adding one probably wouldn't be too hard and it would let me understand it. It would also be worth clarifying that it's testing the strength of the plate, because I initially thought it was testing the strength of the balls. Overall reading the lead I got confused a couple times about what this actually was. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cathodography and User:Ldm1954: What is the status of this review? Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): {{GAList/check|OK} b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: