Talk:Broaching (metalworking)/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Sp in ni ng  Spark  18:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

First impression is a nice, solid article. I am busy tomorrow so you will probably not get a full review until the weekend. Two things immediately struck me on a brief read through. First of all, it is not clear, at least in the lede, what the machine motion is. I presume it is always linear like a shaping machine (but are other motions possible?) and that it is reciprocating but no cut takes place on the backstroke. This is only me guessing of course, I could easily be wrong. A diagram might help. Secondly, I have some issues with the formatting and derivation of some of the equations, but I will get to that later. I am also not convinced you are following WP:LEAD, but I reserve judgement on that one as I have not yet fully read the article.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  18:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. Defining the processes in the lead is somewhat tough because there's linear broaching and rotary broaching, which both operate under the same principle, but do it using two different motions. I'll see what I can do clarify it. Wizard191 (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Lede
 * The broach is used in a broaching machine... Is this sentence meant to only apply to linear broaching? If so, something like "Linear broaches are used in a broaching machine..." would be better. on the other hand if it is meant to apply to both types, it should not be splitting the two sentences.
 * favorable to other processes seems an awkward phrase, suggest "favored over other processes".
 * The link to stamping needs disambiguation
 * broach is rotated and pressed should be "the broach..."
 * All done. Wizard191 (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Process
 * The link to spline needs disambiguation
 * The whole description of internal broaching is difficult to grasp and would benefit from a diagram, or at least, reference to the drawing further down the article. It is implied that the tool is mounted vertically, but this is left to the reader to work out. "Pilot", "elevator" and "puller" only start to make sense after looking at the later diagram.  placed on a spherical workholder designed to automatically align the workpiece completely unclear to me how it is meant to achieve that.
 * I've attempted to explain all this better. Please let me know if I succeeded. Wizard191 (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Usage
 * "Keyway" is linked for the second time here.
 * easily cost. "Easily" is superfluous here, MOS:OPED.
 * Broaching can also be used on harder materials, like stainless steel and titanium,[11] but it is tougher. Not sure what the intended meaning of "is tougher" is here. Is it "Broaching is more difficult on harder materials, like stainless steel and titanium,[11] but is still possible."?


 * Types
 * The information does not really work as a table. I think a bulleted list might work better;
 * By use; internal, or surface
 * By purpose; single, or combination
 * etc
 * costs can also be reduced."Also" is superfluous.
 * All done. Wizard191 (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Surface broaches
 * Slot broaches are cut slots. Does this mean "Slot broaches are for cutting slots"?
 * when more than one slot needs to be machined, because the broach can produce both slots at the same time. "More than one" is not necessarily the same as two. How is this possible? the tool can only be in one slot at a time.
 * Spline wikilinked for the second time
 * All done. I added an image of a broached slot, so I hope that helps as well. Wizard191 (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Internal broaches
 * Arbor requires disambiguation
 * Done. Wizard191 (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is cheaper to produce than a solid broach, especially if it will need to be replaced after wearing out. This is not logical, whether or not the tool is eventually replaced makes no difference to the cost of the tool.  Possibly what is meant is that the high cost of the tool is more significant on large production runs where the tool may need to be frequently replaced.  But even that is dubious, a small production run which only uses the tool for, say, half its possible life will have higher unit costs than a large production run where the full life of the tool is utilised.  Perhaps just "They are designed to mount on an arbor and are cheaper to produce than a solid broach."
 * I'm going to have to look at this tonight when I have the ref available. Wizard191 (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I expanded this section out to closely reflect what the ref says. Wizard191 (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I accept in good faith that this is what the ref is saying but I am still not quite clear why this is cheaper in the long run. The implication seems to be that hollow broaches last longer.
 * They are similar to shell broaches in that they are a multi-piece construction. Do you perhaps mean "except that" instead of "in that"?
 *  Sp in ni ng  Spark  12:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope it should be "in that", because a shell type broach is multiple pieces (an arbor and a shell broach). I also tried to explain the reasoning of the cost difference. Wizard191 (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Design
 * other broaches is similar. Should be "are similar".
 * Done. Wizard191 (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Markup of mathematical symbols is not consistent and not compliant with standard practice (see MOS:MATH. Symbols for variables and quantities are always in italics.  Affixes are in an upright font unless they are themselves variables.  For instance it is Lw, not Lw or Lw.  When using the LaTex math markup there are several ways of achieving this, none of them particularly neat.  I use the mathrm function.  For example  .  If the suffix is more than one character, curly brackets are required eg  .  The whole article needs reviewing for this.
 * Done. Wizard191 (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The most important characteristic of a broach is its RPT. It is not explained why this is the most important characteristic, or even why there is a rise at all.
 * Here they are defined as... This is not a definition, it is merely naming the terms. Suggest deleting this phrase and placing the colon after "broach".
 * Done. Wizard191 (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * tf is zero. Always, or just most commonly?  Why bother to define a symbol for it if it is always zero?  Also, MOS:MATH recommends not starting a sentence with a math symbol.
 * It must only be sometimes because Degarmo states that the finishing RPT for free machining steel is 0.001". Corrected per WP:MATH. Wizard191 (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * forging is wikilinked for the second time
 * Done. Wizard191 (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The exact depth depends on many factors, however. The change to using "depth" as a term is confusing.  Either continue to use RPT, or first say what is meant by depth, e.g. "RPT is governed by by the depth of cut required per tooth which depends on several factors." then start a new sentence.  This also gets rid of the ugly "however".
 * Done. Wizard191 (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * final dimension. Presumably the dimension after each tooth has cut is meant.  20 thou seems awfully small for the total cut.
 * Yes that is what is meant, however I'm not sure any better way to say it. And 20 thou is correct.
 * I have copyedited this sentence. Please check that I have not mangled the meaning.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  12:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I attempted to clarify it, because it's the total difference between the uncut hole and the final cut of the hole after the entire broach has gone through it. Wizard191 (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The hook (α) determines the primary rake angle. In the list of symbols it says hook angle is the same as rake angle so this would appear to be a superfluous statement.
 * Done. Wizard191 (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For steel is should be "For steel, it is".
 * Done. Wizard191 (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The paragraph on notching could usefully refer the reader to some of the photographs which appear to demonstrate these notches. This might require assigning figure numbers to the images.
 * Are you referring to the rotor-cut design? If so, I'm not sure I have an image of one.
 * I was referring to the small channels that can be seen in the teeth of the lede image and some of the images of the spline cutting broach. I am assuming that these are the notches mentioned in the text.  If so, it would be helpful to the reader to refer them to the images in the notching paragraph.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  12:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the drawing at the top of the "design" section has them drawn and pointed out. Wizard191 (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * there are not multiple teeth with the same RPT. What does this mean? If it means that there are not multiple teeth with zero RPT it needs rewording, if not, then clarifying.  Same confusing might apply to the previous mention of RPT in that paragraph. And another mention in the subsequent paragraph.
 * I tried clarifying this, but it's tough with words. I referenced the image gallery, if that helps. Wizard191 (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell within the accuracy of the drawing, the chip-breakers have a constant RPT equal to the RPT of the following teeth, so I am failing to understand the meaning of this sentence.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  12:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Chip breakers are different than a "rotor-cut" circular broach or "double-cut" surface broach. I moved the sentence to a different section and removed the comparison to these designs to try and reduce the confusion. Wizard191 (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Calculations
 * pitch is usually defined by the workpiece length This is not a definition, most especially as the relationship is stated to be only approximate. "The pitch is determined by..." would be better. It would also be helpful to explain why the pitch of teeth depends on the workpiece length at all.
 * Done. Wizard191 (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * number of roughing teeth. I am not following why the equation is stated in this way. The implication seems to be that the finishing and semi-finishing teeth have already been determined by other means.
 * Unfortunately that's the only equation Degarmo gives of number of teeth. I'll see if I can find another source for the other number of teeth. Wizard191 (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a hidden assumption in all these calculations that the pitch is constant across all teeth and the RPT is constant across each section of teeth. It might be as well to explicitly state these assumptions for mathematical rigour.
 * Done. Wizard191 (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * L = LB − Lw . I don't understand why this is so or why there is a difference between the two setups. If the stroke stops after travelling the length of the broach, the final tooth has only jsut made contact with the near side of the workpiece and several teeth will not have yet touched the far side.  Subtracting the length of the workpiece makes this worse, some teeth will not have entered the work at all.
 * That's a pretty good point. I'm not sure where Degarmo got that calculation from either. As such, I'm going to remove it. Wizard191 (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Cutting time. This equation is not in SI units.  I don't have a problem with that (although converting would also solve the problem) but because it isn't it needs to be fully explained. It only works if not only the speed is in ft/min, but also the length must be in inches and the answer comes out in minutes.
 * Because I removed the above equation I'm removing this one as well. Wizard191 (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Although this equation would not seem to have a problem, despite the above comments.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  13:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Broaching machine
 * hydraulic is not such a good wikilink, I don't think the readers of this article will be too interested in Roman aqueducts. Hydraulic machinery is much more relevant.
 * Done. Wizard191 (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Rotary broaching
 * ' 'lathes, screw machine or Swiss lathe'' should all be plural for consistency. Also, it might be worth stating specifically that there is no specific machine for rotary broaching, it is a broach tool used in a more general rotary machine, this is not at first obvious and needs some reading between the lines to divine.
 * Done. Wizard191 (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Swiss lathe redirects to lathe. I have added an anchor point to the lathe article to make this a more useful redirect.  Please check that I have redirected to the relevant part of the article.
 * Yup, you got it right. Wizard191 (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ' 'The leading (cutting) edge of the broach has a contour matching the desired final shape and this leading edge of the tool is wider than the body. This sentence is confused and should probably be broken into two.  Wider than the body'', the body of what? And why?
 * Yeah, that was a mess. It should be better now. Wizard191 (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the broach is titled on this angle the pocket in the tool. tilted is misspelt. Is it not the toolholder that has the pocket? This may need explaining.
 * Hrm...a picture would be really good now. Wizard191 (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Diagram would be good. It is not clear what is meant by pocket. It is not clear what the reference direction for draft in and draft out is.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  13:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not clear why the tilt angle is needed
 * I added a sentence about why. Wizard191 (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Formula. It needs to be stated that the formula only applies to the specific case of 1 degree tilt (or else make the formula more general). More importantly, the RHS does not come out in unit of a rate.  The rate of rotation needs to appear there somewhere.
 * Generalized and added units. Wizard191 (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The "times" symbol would work better with text quantities rather than a dot, or else change all the quantities to symbols.
 * Done. Wizard191 (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * History. World War 1 should be World War I.
 * Done. Wizard191 (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * References


 * Ref 5 is not too informative on where the link is going to take the reader. Short form references are really only used when a full reference appears in the bibliography.  It would be better to give the next level heading up in the sites hierarchy as well in the title, "AstroBroach Machines: Principles of Operation" makes it much clearer what is being linked.  Also, if you are going to use a cite template,  is more appropriate here.  This will allow "Anderson Tool & Engineering Co., Inc." to be cited as the publisher.
 * Done. Wizard191 (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also on ref 5, although it verifies the use of water soluble cutting fluids, it does not verify they are becoming more popular, only that they have some advantages. Non-commercial sources are always preferable if you can find them.
 * Ref 11 is a bare url. Similar comments on format as ref 5.
 * Ref 14, similar comments on format as ref 5.
 * Ref 21, similar comments on format as ref 5.
 * All done. Wizard191 (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Images - all check out.
 *  Sp in ni ng  Spark  15:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is now easily a GA standard article and I am going to pass it. However, I recommend that the remaining outstanding comments continue to be worked on before submitting for any further reviews.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  14:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)