Wikipedia

Talk:Gravity bong/GA1

< Talk:Gravity bong
(Redirected from Talk:Bucket bong/GA1)
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Philcha in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago91 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Philcha (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll mark  Y comments when I think they're resolved, highlight  N any that are unresolved when most others are done, and strike out any of comments that I later decide are mistaken. I'll sign each of my comments, so we can see who said what - please do the same.

I'll mark the review {{inuse}} when I'm working on it, as edit conflicts are frustrating. If you think I've forgotten to remove {{inuse}}, please leave a message at my Talk page. Please free to use {{inuse}} with your own signature when you're working.

I'll read the article through first, then give comments. --Philcha (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

General comments

edit

Coverage

edit
  • "Weed" is dried leaves and stems, most usually rolled in a cigarette paper - the result is often called a joint. A spliff is a very fat joint (see pic at joint) - "spliff" may be a UK term. My "cake" is hashish, a dried paste. AFAIK bongs (water pipes) and their derivatives use the hashish form, as "weed" would not fit into the small bowl at the top of water pipe or bucket bong. Hash brownies are cakes in which the ingredients include pulverised hashish. --Philcha (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • What's a "blunt", and what do you mean by "vaporizers"? You've got me there :-) --Philcha (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • You can't avoid the legal aspect. I doubt that there's a legal problem with using any types of water pipe, etc. with tobacco. But, in your words, "The bong is mainly used for smoking cannabis." In that case, you can't avoid the legal aspect. AFAIK the criminalisation of cannabis has a murky history. The trick is say just enough to make the reader aware, without going into depth - e.g. (subject to sources) studies by the US Army in the early 1930s and by Fiorello LaGuardia in (?)1935 said cannabis had advantages over alcoholic beverages, but the US govt criminalized cannabis very shortly after. I admit I'm tempted to research the history and, if I could find some A-grade sources, do an article in it for fun - it would raise eyebrows but, if there are A-grade sources, ... >-)
  • 2 things:
    • You use the phrase "head shops" without explanation. The solutions I can see without too much thought are: paraphrase, if not too clumsy; add a section "Notes" above "References" for brief explanation notes. The 3 elements of Notes are (see example at Maevia inclemens): {{reflist|group="Note"}} right under the section heading; a sort of bullet list with {{note|a}} ... ... ...{{note|b}} ... ... ..., etc.; and the links in the main text, [a], [b] (rather like the numbers in references. --Philcha (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
    •  Y I'll look for sources for the murky origins of the criminalisation of cannabis, as the official line is very would be very POV if the authors had to use WP's rules. --Philcha (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • In the first good source from Google Books, I found too much found that the history is too long and complex to be easily summarised in Bucket bong. It's now on my to-do list (long, no promises). So we have to go with the "official" position at present. --Philcha (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Do we have a misunderstanding here? I meant that the article needs to explain why anyone would want to make and use a bucket bong, and bong is a good start, although you'd have add content specific to the advantages and limitations of a bucket bong. --Philcha (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • It is mentioned that a gravity bong "does not use water to filter the cannabis," which to a lot of people is a disadvantage. I'm not sure if an entire section can be made for that subject.

Ways of inhaling smokable substances:

  • Substance burnt in paper tube:
    • Joint
    • Blunt
    • Spliff
  • Substance burnt in bowl:
    • Bowl only
    • Inhaling through water:
      • Bong (water pipe)
    • Using water pressure to
      draw smoke into bottle:
      • Bucket bong
      • Waterfall bong
  • Ancestry, "cousins", etc. of the bucket bong? The waterfall bong looks like a sub-species of bucket bong, and integrates the bucket and the bong. I've improved to GA several zoology and paleontology articles, and I'd be tempted to add here a section "Taxonomy", which IIRC would be correct and also would be a little joke. --Philcha (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Ideally we need a source or 2 for the origin of the bucket bong and the waterfall bong (who and when), and hopefully the inspiration for the apparatus. If that leads back to the waterpipe, we have a taxonomy - I know the concept well, see User:Philcha#Improved_and_got_passed_as_GA in paleontology and zoology. If you can supply the sources, I can make suggestions on the taxonomy aspects - and it would be fun using "taxonomy" correctly but in an unconventional context. --Philcha (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • I don't think any information on taxonomy is available, if I am understanding it by its actual definition, something's category in a classification thing? CrowzRSA 21:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • I think a small section on the subject would be very interesting actually, but I think a larger section should be made in the Bong article as well. I have no idea where I could such information though, it seems like very little research has actually been done on the gravity bong. And I also thought that idea that bucket bongs and waterfall bongs may be in the gravity bong category may be the case on this. CrowzRSA 15:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Structure

edit

I think the current structure is confusing. For example, "Description" describes the bucket / gravity bong, and 2 sections later "Waterfall bong" is very similar and partly duplicates some content. Assuming I've understand this (please correct me if needed), how about something like: --Philcha (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • Section "Description" or "Operation"
    • Introductory para: it's a means of smoking cannabis, tobacco, etc.; bucket bong and waterfall bong both methods of filling smoke into a large bottle and then inhaling. (with citations)
    • Sub-section "Bucket bong"
      • Also called "gravity bong"
      • Major components: large bucket; large plastic bottle with bottom cut off; head consisting of wire bowl for smoking, short plastic tube, and screw fitting that fixes the bowl and pipe into the top of the bottle. (note that this only describes the sub-assemblies, not the details of to how to make them)
      • The user fills the bucket and then pushes the bottle into the water, almost down to the top of the bottle.
      • The user screws the bowl and small pipe into the bottle, fills the bowl and lights the substance, and lifts the bottle so it's bottom is very near to surface of the water. This fills the bottle with the smoke.
      • Unscrews the bowl and small pipe, and and enjoy.
    • Sub-section "Waterfall bong" (NB do as description, not manual)
      • No bucket. Small hole in the wall of the bottle, near the bottom. Stopper ready to fix into the small hole near the bottom.
      • Fix the stopper. Fill the bottle with water. Screw the bowl and small pipe into the bottle, fill the bowl and light the substance. Temporally withdraw the stopper, so that the water drains out and the bottle is filled with smoke.
      • Fix the stopper, unscrew the bowl and small pipe, and enjoy.
      • (then check for duplication).
  • Section "Comparison to other herbal consumption methods" - joints, blunts, spliffs, water pipes, ? vaporizers if these are a separate method rather than an add-on.
  • Section "Reception" - the comments from reviewers.
  • Section "Legal status" - is OK and in right place.
  • (adjust position of diagrams)
  • I think there should be a "Typical users" subsection in "Comparison to other herbal consumption methods" section. And I also think that "Reception" may pose better as a sub-section to "Description". CrowzRSA 16:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Description

edit
  • I've made "Brian Griffin noted the aesthetic downside of a gravity bong ..." a separate para as it's about reviews rather operation. In articles about books, TV shows, computer games, etc. this content would be in a section "Reviews" or "Reception", but we can resolve that later. --Philcha (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
  •  Y Please remove 'the one 3/8" or 1/4" brass cut nozzle', see Wikipedia:NOTMANUAL#NOTMANUAL. --Philcha (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
  •  N The rest of the 1st para and the 2nd part of also looks too like a manual, but I think it's needed. The trick is to paraphrase it so it looks more like anatomy than construction. More below. --Philcha (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Sorry, but the first sentence gives the game away, its instructions - e.g. "... is made using ..."and "must be cut off, and the bottle's cap will have a small hole in the center". You need roughly something like "... consists of sub-assembly A, sub-assembly B, ... Sub-assembly A consists of ...", etc. If you get a mental block, ask a friend. In fact my comment " It looks to me that the main body (excluding bucket) is a fairly large and tall plastic bottle, such as a family-sized soft drinks bottle, and with the bottom cut off. There's a detachable component which consists of: a small bowl which is for burning the substance and which may made of wire gauze; a short tube that will transit the smoke into the bottle; and an air-tight fixing that temporarily connects the bowl and tube to the bottle" could be a good start. It may help if you think of how it looks as you get an already-made one out of a cupboard or box, and then how it looks after you've set it up. --Philcha (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
  •  N I found the rest of the 1st and 2nd para confusing, while to me the 3-stage diagram is excellent. It looks to me that the main body (excluding bucket) is a fairly large and tall plastic bottle, such as a family-sized soft drinks bottle, and with the bottom cut off. There's a detachable component which consists of: a small bowl which is for burning the substance and which may made of wire gauze; a short tube that will transit the smoke into the bottle; and an air-tight fixing that temporarily connects the bowl and tube to the bottle. --Philcha (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • The 2 pics on the left also confused me, as they imply that the bottle itself can be in 2 parts. But as far as I can see, the lid must stay fixed to the rest of the bottle, otherwise the vapour escapes. But the pics do not show the bowl assembly is removed in order for the use to inhale. --Philcha (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • The article says, While holding the bottle in place, the lid is removed and the bottle will be pushed down while the one smoking it is breathing the smoke in while the one's mouth is on the bottle's opening.[1][2]. CrowzRSA 16:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
  •  Y Please use "litre" or "liter" (depending your dialect) rather than "L". Another of WP's idiosyncrasies - and, as you can see, applies only to articles :-) --Philcha (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • How many people are needed to operate this contraption? And how do they avoid getting wet? How to stop the bottle from toppling or being lifted too far, so that the vaoupr espaces? --Philcha (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • I already know the answers to these—One person, since they just need to lift it while holding a lighter. The only thing that gets wet (usually) are your lips. You have to physically stop the bong from coming out of the water, since I use water, you can't really tell when it's about to come out of the water, so I've lifted it out of the water before and it sucks, cause smoke gets everywhere—but I don't know where I can get a reference to verify such information. CrowzRSA 14:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
    •  N At Google (ordinary) for "bucket bong" hold the first entry is p. 38 of Build This Bong: Instructions and Diagrams for 40 Bongs, Pipes, and Hookahs, a book by Randy Stratton. When I linked to the page about the book, Google wouldn't show that page. But back to the search page, there's short extract which can be adapted to show how fiddly using a bucket can be, and can imply the risk of spilling and letting the vapour out. --Philcha (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Page 38 says "Materials and Supplies: One large plastic bottle such as a 2-liter beverage bottle, one 3/8" or 1/4" F X 1/8" M brass cut nozzle, Screen (an aerator screen cut to fit the bowl, or an appropriately sized screen purchased from a smoke shop), and one large bucket or other container filled with water. Tools: X-Acto knife, or similar sharp, pointy instrument, and a drill and 3/8" drill bit (optional). Directions: Cut off the bottom of the bottle with the knife, drill or cut a 3/8" hole in the beverage bottle cap, and thread the cut nozzle into the hold on the outside of the cap, and screw the cap onto the bottle. Insert the screen into the bowl. Note: To use, immerse the bottle up to its neck in water. Be sure to load the bowl after the bottle has been immersed. Then, while lighting the bowl, slowly lift the bottle until the bottom is just below the surface of the water. Hold the bong in place while removing the cap. Push the bong down to release the smoke through the beverage bottle opening." That book and page has already been cited in this article, And it pretty much already summarizes this with The bottle is then immersed to its neck in water, and the substance should be inserted directly after the bottle has been immersed. While lighting the bowl with (preferably) a lighter or match, gradually lift the bottle until nearly out of water or when the substance discontinues burning. While holding the bottle in place, the lid is removed and the bottle will be pushed down while the one smoking it is breathing the smoke in while the one's mouth is on the bottle's opening. CrowzRSA 21:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • Google Books and Google Scholar is often more useful Google (ordinary), as the latter other is cluttered with sales pages or does not comply with WP:V (1st 2 sections).
    • If you can't the term you want, try synonyms - Google for "your word(s) synonym" to get get dictionary entries. If that doesn't, you could try "your word(s) antonym". --Philcha (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Waterfall bong

edit
  • I have re-written the section, and I think it looks a lot better now. CrowzRSA 18:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • Think of the sub-assemblies I suggested in "Bucket bong". I think the waterfall bong should be simpler; most of the description is as like that in "Bucket bong"; the difference is that there's no bucket, and instead the bottle has a small hole near the bottom of its cylinder, with a stopper that fits snugly into the hole. --Philcha (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • I added that a large bucket or container is needed, that the cut nozzle was a bowl, and I added A mid-sized hole that is cut smooth to prevent leakage is located near the bottom of the bottle to water bong. I'm pretty sure that's all of the sub-assemblies: Bucket, bottle, bowl, screen, CrowzRSA 17:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Comparison to other herbal consumption methods

edit
  •  Y The weights are confusing. My impression is that joints and blunts use "weed" / "grass", while you say the various "pipes" can use "weed" / "grass" or hashish, and my impression is that hashish contains more THC per gram. So how to reconcile the various quantities? --Philcha (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Unless using weed or hashish for actual medical use and not as a recreational psychedelic, the majority of smokers use weed for recreational uses, they'll pack the same sized bowl with hash as they would weed. CrowzRSA 14:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

(sections)

edit

I'll check with User:Dispenser/Checklinks and the DAB checker when the content is stable.

Images

edit

Lead

edit

I review the lead last, to check that all of it is based on the main text.

CrowzRSA, there's still a lot to do - see the comments above, and then we need to look at the phrasing. This is taking too long. --Philcha (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Result of review

edit

This review is going nowhere. I know you're relatively new to Wikipedia, and hoped to get you off to a good start. Unfortunately it seems that you need more experience in WP before you nominate or review articles for GA. Perhaps it would useful for you collaborate on other articles, and study what other edditors do there, and especially their responses to your contributions, both at the articles' Talk pages and in changes made in the article (the articles' History tab can be useful to highlight recent changes).

Areas where further improvement is needed on Bucket bong include:

  • The sections describing "Bucket bong" and "Waterfall bong" still contain manual-like passages. See the comment above where I almost re-wrote a paragraph, and my suggestion "... think of how it looks as you get an already-made one out of a cupboard or box ..."
  • It still doesn't clarify the use or necessity for a lid.
  • Your writing is still poor - e.g. sometimes verbose, sometimes unclear, too much use of passive voice when e.g. "The use may ..." is often clear and more vivid.
  • Need some restructuring, e.g. "reception" (external reviewers comments) separated from description sections.

So I regretfully conclude that, at present, Bucket bong does no meet the GA criteria, and must award a Fail. I hope you are successful in 6 to 12 months. --Philcha (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

If you disagree with my conclusions, you may request a reassessment of the review and its result. --Philcha (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gravity_bong/GA1&oldid=1136274668"