Talk:Hard suction hose/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

This article worries me somewhat. The big question is, is it a GA and if not could it be made a GA-class article?

It's nicely referenced, which is to its favour, BUT:

The WP:lead is almost as long as the article, which suggests that the article is too short.
This is (almost) definitely a US-centric article but it does not say so.
As a US-centric article it only uses English units, i.e there is no 10 feet (3.0 m), etc.
And its (unnecessarily) vague in places.

I'm going to think about what to do about this one, i.e. either a quick fail or put On Hold, probably the latter.Pyrotec (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed comments

This article is currently non-compliant with WP:WIAGA, but some of these can be addressed relatively easily. So I'm putting this article On Hold rather than failing it.

Requirement 1(b) WP:lead -

I consider this to be non-compliant, in so far as the lead is almost as long as the rest of the article. The lead is intended to introduce and summarise the article, not form 50%, or there abouts, of the article. I'm not convinced that this is a summary of the article anyway. Done Pyrotec (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the current lead be moved into a section with a title such as "fire hoses", as its two main functions appears to be: (1) to define the difference between a Hard suction hose and a fire hose, and (2) describe a Hard suction hose; and a new lead created. Done. Pyrotec (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This contains jargon that is not explained or wikilinked, for example "Since a fire engine's pump only produces a partial vacuum, it can only lift water a few feet, rendering long lays of hard suction hose problematic". Done. Pyrotec (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requirement 3(b) Broadness -

This article appears to be one of a series of articles on fire fighting, yet, without specifically stating so, it appears to be based solely on US practices, US standards and US references. There is no attempt to consider these hoses from an International fire fighting context. Done Pyrotec (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current lead, numbered para 4 mentions "The coupling torque to assemble mating suction couplings is higher", yet there is no explanation of what this refers to. No explanation or discussion of couplings is provide in the article. A figure has a title refering to Storz, but these are not mentioned in the article.
Article is vague in its explanations, for example "Since a fire engine's pump only produces a partial vacuum, it can only lift water a few feet, rendering long lays of hard suction hose problematic"; and, the use of gallon without defining which of the three definitions is being used.
The section called size discusses diameters, not size, as elsewhere the length is stated to be 10 ft, and then states that the hose must match the pump's capability. An example is given, but there is no coverage of the relationship between size (actually diameter) and pump size.
units are given soley in US (so called English units) units. Done Pyrotec (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If these can be adequately addressed, I will then reconsider the article. Pyrotec (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After careful consideration, and a bit of surveying of what I can do... I can fix the 1b issues, but not the 3b issues in any timely manner. I'll go ahead and address the 1b issues, but if you don't want to leave it on hold for a week or two, I can't fault you for failing it. I should have noticed that before nominating, so the fault is mine. Jclemens (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait a bit longer before making a decision. I assume that the major problem with fixing the "3(B) faults" in a short time-frame is the lack of the "International content"? Defining the gallon and the couplings don't appear to be a major stumbling block. My coment on "partial vaccum" is that atmospheric pressure should support a column 30 ft of water; a lift of "a few feet" seems to be low as well as vague in this context? Pyrotec (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a perfect vacuum could deliver 32 ft of freshwater lift or so, but fire engine pumps are designed for volume and durability, not perfect vacuum, as are the fitting couplings involved. Yes, I can certainly fix the unit measurements, but I'm not sure how I'm going to find EU standards for such hose, for instance. Jclemens (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, we have a National Fire Service that is organised by county; and the fire manual can be found here: | Amazon listing - Manual of Firemaship. Pyrotec (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that might be out of date. This appears to be the latest one Hydraulics, Pumps and Water Supplies Fire Service Manual - Volume 1: Fire Service Technology, Equipment and Media. Pyrotec (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the European Standards web site (CEN web site) for "fire hose" and came up with the following European Standards (EN)s: note that they are dual CEN / International Standards (ISO Standards). Most of the fire fighting standardisation work in Europe is now being done at the ISO-level rather than the European level. The ISO standards web site is ISO web site

EN ISO 14557:2002 Fire-fighting hoses - Rubber and plastics suction hoses and hose assemblies (ISO 14557:2002)
EN ISO 14557:2002/A1:2007 Fire-fighting hoses - Rubber and plastics suction hoses and hose assemblies - Amendment 1 (ISO 14557:2002/Amd 1:2007)
EN 1947:2002+A1:2007 Fire-fighting hoses - Semi-rigid delivery hoses and hose assemblies for pumps and vehicles
EN ISO 15540:2001 Ships and marine technology - Fire resistance of hose assemblies - Test methods (ISO 15540:1999) No 96/98/EC
EN ISO 15541:2001 Ships and marine technology - Fire resistance of hose assemblies - Requirements for the test bench (ISO 15541:1999)

Pyrotec (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've gone ahead and made most of the 1b changes, and welcome feedback on those. I will attempt to research and integrate some EU specifics over the next week. I wouldn't fault you for failing it at this point, but if you feel like being patient, I may very well have a better article by the end of the week. Jclemens (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've done a lot on the article, and I'd prefer some more feedback--have I added enough international content? Is there still too much jargon for the layperson to understand? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work. The article is much improved; and I can understand it, not having been a fire fighter. Pyrotec (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding 'Problems

Having got this far, I'm more inclined to consider this article as being capable of making GA-grade. However, I think there is still some improvements that can be made in some sections.

Vagueness of couplings -

We have two pictures showing a hose and a strainer with Storz fittings, Characteristics and construction has the statement: "The coupling torque to assemble mating suction couplings is higher so that these flaps on mating couplings are pressed together initially, sealing out the outside air, so that the draft can be started.[2]"; and it is obvious that the USA and Australia use Storz couplings (the UK does as well), so why is the article so secretive about the couplings?
Torque suggests that some type of rotating action is needed to connect the hoses together and the picture and the references sort of give the game away.
Why not make life easy for the readers that state that the hoses have Storz connectors (and/or screw threads and thread to Storz adapters if that is true)? Note: UK terminology seems to be screw threads, standard instanteous couplings and full flow couplings (Sortz = full flow couplings ?).

lift -

You have improved the precision of the statements on partial vacuum and lift; and provided in-line citations to support your statement, so I will only make a comment. The UK Fire Service Manual Hydraulics, Pumps and water Supplies confirms your statements that suction pumps are normally quoted for a 3 metre lift. However further details are given: atmospheric pressure will support a 10 m column of water; so for a 3 m lift, a maximum of 7 m is available and that is distributed between head of water and the various losses. There is a mnemonic CREST for the loss five factors.
There also mention in the UK Fire Service Manual of how larger lifts (than 3 m) are accomplished, and that can involve the use of these hoses. This article makes no mention of what to do if the lift is more than 3 m; neither does it appear to be covered in the "Fire fighting" template at the bottom of the article.

...Stopping at this point (to be continued). Pyrotec (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've reworded the couplings bit, but I'm almost thinking that there could be a reference to another article to explain how normal fire hose couplings work--this seems a bit too long to me right now. On the other hand, I'm not sure how to improve the lift section further--further discussions of the physics probably ought to go in the Drafting water article, which is pretty lean by comparison.

I await further feedback. Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One way forward could be to insert into Diameter, in front of the existing text, { {main|Drafting water}}; then provide a concise summary of that article, such as: 'a suction pump has a maximum lift of 10 m but frictional losses mean that volume flow rate is inversely proportional to the lenght of hose line; so for a required volumetric flow rate, hose diameter needs to be traded off against line length.'. Then you have the exisiting text on hose diameter. Pyrotec (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well in the UK it appears that we would use a (water powered / hydraulic) submersible pump (I don't know if that is what the US fire services call them). An article, that claims to be encyclopedic, that makes the point that these hoses (and pumps) are not recommended for lifting more than 3 m aught to, at least, state how lifts of more than 3 m might be acheived.

I did a copy edit on the article. My changes are written in British-English with some American-English words. Change it to American-English if you like. It could also do with some in-line citations. Pyrotec (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strainers -

Any further comments on my latest tweaking and reorg'ing? Jclemens (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've not been on wikipedia from 24 Aug to 28 Aug, other than to add a comment on another review; and with two reviews apparently "stalled" I started another two reviews yesterday.

Your last series of edits have certainly much improved the readability of the article. However, I still have some concerns over "broadness"; and a number of concerns I have made above on multiple occassions have not be addressed. For instance, the article now states that attack lines have threaded couplings, large diameter supply lines often have Storz couplings; but there is still no statement of what couplings Hard suction hoses are fitted with (other than suction gaskets are fitted)!!!
- Sorry if I'm being dense about what's desired. Hose couplings are actually covered in their own separate article. They're a separate firefighting topic, and generally part of fire hose. Looking at that article, it could stand to be cleaned up and improved.
- Let's look at Hose couplings - its a list of couplings such as Cam & Groove Coupling, Storz coupling, etc, with a description of each coupling. If you are unwilling, or unable, to even name the coupling(s) fitted to a Hard suction hose, what use is the Hose coupling article? Perhaps the hoses come without couplings and firefighting authorities fit their own, or it depends on the diameter, but if that is the case then say so. Pyrotec (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like reviews going on this long, will little apparent progress, so I will make a pass/fail decision by tomorrow (although I will add some material to see if I can bulk the article out in parts to one that I think has adequate broadness, as per WP:WIAGA ). Pyrotec (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's not GA quality, it's not. I guess I'm struggling on how to actually meet your broadness expectations without straying into the other articles. Even if it's not a GA at this point, you've certainly prompted me to improve it greatly, so please don't feel like your effort in this process was wasted, even if I'm not entirely "getting" what all you're wanting. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A fairly short article on a specalist firefighting topic.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
The WP:Lead is possibly a bit shorter than it aught to be.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

The article has improved considerable over these last two weeks, particularly in the last day or so. My concerns over broadness of scope have eased, so I'm awarding GA-status.