Talk:Air well (condenser)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * 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 - ✅Pyrotec (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. ✅.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. ✅.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. ✅.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.

Satisfactory.
 * WP:Lead -

Summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Congratulations on the quaity of the article, I'm awarding GA status.Pyrotec (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: