Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Steel/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

Steel
This is my first attempt at a Featured Article. I've had some input on some previous ones, especially Serial Experiments Lain, but I figured the best way to learn how to do it would be to dive in and try.

I was looking for a core-content article to edit and found this one; a nearly citation-free GA that seemed to be half FA-quality and half a mess. For a few hours, on and off today, I've done some pretty hefty editing to this thing: see diff.

There's almost certainly things to be fixed; but that's the job of the FAC. If you object, please give some examples as to what needs to be fixed and I'll try to address them as soon as possible. — Da rk •S hik ari [T] 01:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose The lede looks jumbled - not the text but just looking at it for a quick glance. The TOC should probably be moved down. Though there are no s, there are still some citations needed. Several paragraphs are completely sourceless. For an article, you should avoid the lists and convert to prose, such as in the types of steel and production methods sections. The uses of steel is also a list, and could use expansion once converted to prose. As a core article, I think it is too short, though it is on its way. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How far down do you suggest the TOC be moved? Also, a number of the paragraphs without source tags are summaries of more detailed information later in the article (e.g. the second lead paragraph); should I duplicate the ref tags using ?  I'm going to be off to bed now, so I'll get back to work on it in the morning. — Da rk •S hik ari [T] 02:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've moved the TOC down a bit. It looks a lot better now. — Da rk •S hik ari [T] 02:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's looking better. Though sources might re-occur later, I think every sentence in the article needs a source (if two sentences in a row have the same source, put it after the second). Sorry if that might cause a lot of work, but I think that is the best way to show it is verifiable. I'd still like to see uses of steel expanded further as prose. Just a weak oppose for now. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'll be working on turning the lists at the bottom into paragraphs throughout the day, so there may be times when it looks a bit awkward between each edit. — Da rk •S hik ari [T] 11:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment- nearly there. Support I feel the article is about the right length for the material written about. I think you've done a good job with the prose which is composed in a succinct and clear manner. Just needs a few refs and you'll be there - inline refs needed in subsections Crucible steel, Styrian Steel and Historical Use of steel and you'll be over the line. cheers,  Casliber | talk  |  contribs 11:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've addressed pretty much all the issues now, after a lot more writing and references. Also, a note about the length; there are many  templates throughout the article; in fact, the entire history section has its own article also.  Most of the topics are too long or detailed to merge into the main article, so its probably acceptable to have a slightly shorter main article with the subtopics in their own articles. — Da rk •S hik ari [T] 16:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added a few more images; tell me if its too much, but a topic like this probably needs many images to illustrate the various facets of the article. — Da rk •S hik ari [T] 23:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is OK by me but I wouldn't add any more. I think there are some who might feel this is too many but we can wait and see. cheers, Casliber | talk  |  contribs 23:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Allthough the article would benefit some more thorough information on the production process, I think it would merit a Featured Article status.


 * Oppose See the FA titanium and uranium to see how History section should look. Subheads for every paragraph is bad form, and organizing based on different types of steel seems odd. A more chronological order would be better esp if combined with info on how use of steel impacted civilization. Summarizing Uses section is little more than a list. No meat. Still much work needed but those are the two major issues I saw. --mav 16:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at it again; its a summary, because the main article is History of ferrous metallurgy. — Da rk •S hik ari [T] 01:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * History section is not much better. My original objection is still valid as I wrote it. --mav 15:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But it *is* sorted chronologically. I split it up by steel type as the types are directly linked to the time periods. — Da rk •S hik ari [T] 19:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Other issues still need to be sorted out. --mav
 * I can't sort out an issue if I don't know what it is. Give me specific examples of things to be fixed (like AnonEMouse) and I'll try to get to them as soon as I can. — Da rk •S hik ari [T] 19:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

-- AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Conditional Support, conditional on fixing following relatively minor issues
 * Copper ... 1000 °C, while tin .. 250 °C. Cast iron ... 1370 °C. Both temperatures ... - Both?
 * Ancient steel Early modern steel - Don't put Wootz/Damascus in both places. Pick one, I recommend Ancient.
 * Henry Bessemer's Bessemer process - wikilink the second. Yes, you linked it earlier, but it's crucial to this section.
 * 2,500 pounds of iron ore - you use degrees C, but pounds and feet? I'd pick either imperial or metric as your primary, but translate per WP:UNITS in any case
 * 90 %, 10% - either put a space before the % or not, but be consistent. I recommend not, but don't know of a definite style guideline, so will accept either, but not both.
 * nonmagnetic. - wikilink
 * alloyed with nickel other elements - ? missing a word or two?
 * stabilize amounts austentite - ? missing a word or two?
 * there also exists - clumsy
 * Finished steel is steel that can be sold without further work or treatment. - really? Not covered with a finish? If so, why in the same paragraph with galvanized?
 * Modern steel is generally identified by various grades of steel defined by various standards organizations. - this is only in the header. Surely the header is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article?
 * Similarly, "historically they were separate products" - did I miss this in the main body?
 * Many types of modern steels exist for different purposes. Made with varying combinations of alloy metals, their properties range to fulfill many purposes. - redundant
 * ferrit - typo?
 * It was also used for springs, - cite. Not as much that it was used for springs, but that it wasn't much used for other things.
 * Will get around to these. You mentioned the issue of pounds; the source stated it in pounds, so I didn't want to convert it. — Da rk •S hik ari [T] 01:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * All the above errors except for some of the citing and content mistakes (like the last few). Going to get to those later.  You mention that "historically they were seperate products" isn't mentioned in the main article; the statement is simply saying that iron and steel are one industry today due to the cheap cost of both, but in the past steel has been much rarer and more expensive than iron, and thus more of a smaller, separate industry.  How do you suggest I work this into the article?  I could also remove the problematic sentence altogether. — Da rk •S hik ari [T] 14:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You just need to find a source that says something like that, use that for a citation, and stick the sentence in an appropriate place. History of Steelmaking, or Uses:Historically seem reasonable places. WP:LEAD says "concise overview", so the lead probably shouldn't be the only place a fact gets mentioned; we certainly shouldn't state a fact without a source to cite. If your source gives pounds, I guess you can start with that, but do provide an alternative to the rest of the world can understand, per WP:UNITS. Do read those links, I'm not just making blue text here for fun, they are useful. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't have to make a crack about the links; I've been a Wikipedian for nearly a year now, and I have read through most of the Manual of Style again while editing this article. I've read your links in particular many many times; though obviously I'll check the exact wording of the guideline as I fix your complaints. — Da rk •S hik ari [T] 19:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies, wasn't intending to be offensive. Good luck. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the useful comments; I think I have it all fixed. — Da rk •S hik ari [T] 04:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, looks like you got them all. Supporting. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 *  Comment Support --The sentence :Crucible steel is steel that has been melted, with the result that it is more homogeneous than if it had not been. Does not give any info what the process is about. There more info would benefit. --The two possibilities to produce steel, coming from carbon rich iron or from carbon free wrought iron is not always clear to see in the history section. --Stone 10:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)--Stone 23:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed, I think. Check my changes, I think they clarify it. — Da rk •S hik ari [T] 16:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose "Uses of steel" should either be a bulleted list or in a narrative, but not both. I think Contemporary steel and Modern production methods could be merged as well with subsections on the various applications, which would in turn obviate the need for "Uses of steel." Otherwise readable, good pics, and decent referencing. Madcoverboy 23:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - You can't have a complete article on steel that makes no mention of the Great Leap Forward.--ragesoss 05:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While it could do with a sentence or a "see also" style link, there isn't a lot to say about it in the context of Steel per se. As our article on it says, it didn't really produce much steel, or otherwise have an impact on steel or its production. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a lot to be said regarding the importance of steel in processes of industrialization and modernization, and the cultural, technological, and architectural aspects of steel. That this article is missing any mention of the Great Leap Forward is but one example of a rather big swath of content that a complete article on Steel, at its most general level, should include.  The fact that little useful steel was produced in the Great Leap Forward (though a fair amount of useless steel of highly variable composition) does not make it any less significant with respect to the general topic of steel; likewise, there is no mention of the role of steel companies in national and international economies and politics, despite the huge impact of steel industries on history since the 19th century.  The "Uses of steel" section is grossly inadequate, especially the history section; most of it isn't even prose.  There are two different sections that address modern steelmaking processes.  The intro should give some indication of the size and economic value of contemporary steel production.  Oppose.--ragesoss 23:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Opppose In addition to above mentioned, references and WP:MOS work needed. For example, see WP:MOSNUM on percentages, and there are numerous blue links in footnotes which need to be converted to a consistent and recognizable citation style.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.