Talk:Air well (condenser)/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

An interesting, well illustrated and well-referenced article. In general, it appears to be at or about GA-level.

I'll now review this section by section, leaving the WP:lead until last.

• Moisture -  DonePyrotec (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• The first and third paragraphs appear to be OK.
• The second paragraph is unreferenced. I've slightly modified the first statement; and I would suggest that we need, as a minimum, WP:verification for the "fog claim" and the "latent heat claim" - if you could produced one to verify the claim that dew is different from fog that would be even better, but I'm not insisting on this one.

I have added a reference to the Beysens/Milimouk article which discusses fog and dew at some length.

I have added a reference to the Nikolayev et al article which discusses the mathematics of high mass condensers at length including discussing latent heat. This article may be difficult to find without paying. I would not have thought that the point was controversial.

• High mass collectors

• The Zibold’s collector section appears to be confirmed by ref 9. However, ref 9 states that the stones were discovered by Zibold, whereas the first paragraph does not make it clear that Zibold was the discoverer.

I think I have clarified that matter. I have also added a reference to the Nikolayev et al article which has a bit more detail on the matter.  Done.Pyrotec (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Klaphake’s collectors - a number of claims are made that don't appear to be verified by refs 15 & 16. Unless I've missed it - there is no verification of speculation about German Secret police, the Cook railway, a meeting in London with the Premier of South Australia.

The reference to the Uncommon Lives site actually has several pages and it is necessary to go through them. I have now provided more specific links.  Done.Pyrotec (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• International Organization for Dew Utilization
• First paragraph - Ref 26, Youtube, cannot be regarded as a reliable source, but there is no reason why it can't go into the External links section.

Point taken. I have moved the link to the External links section.  Done.Pyrotec (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Second paragraph - this is unreferenced.

Reference added. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fifth paragaph is unreferenced.

Paragraph deleted. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Seventh paragaph is unreferenced.

Paragraph deleted. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Active collectors -

.... to be continued.Pyrotec (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it will be next weekend before I finish this review. The article will pass, but there are a few minor fixes needed first; and I see that you are actively working on them.Pyrotec (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• This section appears to be satisfactory.

• WP:Lead -

Satisfactory.

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A interesting, wide-ranging article

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quaity of the article, I'm awarding GA status.Pyrotec (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)