Talk:Holzwarth gas turbine/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Stivushka (talk · contribs) 06:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 20:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this shortly! IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See comments below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC) Second Opinions wanted. IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead needs to be expanded and should be a summary of the body meaning it usually does not need citations. See Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section for more guidance. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC) The lead is looking much better now! IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Holzwarth developed the theoretical concept for his gas turbine in 1905... built a 25 hp (19 kW) machine while working for Thyssen & Co. does not appear to be in the source but I could be wrong. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC) Ref 4 is 64 pages long. This is too long to not include specific page numbers. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC) Ref 3 is28 pages long. Again too long to not include page numbers. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC) The sourcing is looking much better now so I'm going to go ahead with the source review. IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC) I was able to check all but the last two sources so I'm going to consider the sourcing requirements passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Second Opinions wanted. IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	Based on the fact that of 6 sources you used, only 4 of those are online, 2 of those 4 are large documents without page numbers, and my spot checks are not verifying the information present I'm going to have to put this article on hold. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC) Seeing as the above issues have been improved I will be moving forward with the review. IntentionallyDense (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC) I'm going to put this on hold and ask for a second opinion regarding readability, prose, and broadness as I'm not super confident with making the final decision here. IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• The Holzwarth gas turbine is a form of explosion, or constant volume, gas turbine in which combustion takes place cyclically in a combustion chamber closed off by valves. Is there any way you could make this a bit less technical and easier to understand? IntentionallyDense (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  I have reworded. I think it's now easier to read. Stivushka (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  I have finished tweaking. Its ready for final review.Stivushka (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Observations regarding the loss of waste heat to the cooling water led jacket led to the development, by Brown Boveri, of the commercially successful Velox boilers, which in turn led to the development of the first modern industrial gas turbines. Sounds a bit awkward, is there any way you could reword this? IntentionallyDense (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. I have reworded. 

  Also added JSTOR link to the Scientific American Article and the archive.org link for Holzwarth's 1912 book as, although it passed, this was mentioned in the review.  Stivushka (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Coming in as a second opinion: I think the prose is overall appropriate for the topic. I am not an engineer by any means and don't really know how engines work, but I could follow along for most of the article, especially since there is an excellent diagram which the nominator has adapted well to the prose. I will say that there are some places for improvement, however. See below:

• "Rich mixture" is undefined in Operation; I assume this is an air–fuel mixture? Also what makes a mixture "rich" in this context? More fuel? More air? Consider clarifying and linking. On a similar note, this section is underlinked and could use a little sprucing up there.

• Brown, Boveri, & Cie. is defined once and then "Brown Boveri" is found throughout the page. Are these the same? Did something happen to them? Is Brown Boveri a person like the owner? Unclear to the reader.

As for breadth, I'm struggling to figure out if the article should be broader or narrower. So, I'd say that's a pretty good sign that it stays on topic. If anything, perhaps some context as to who Holzwarth was and the context in which the engine was made could be added, but I'm unsure if that would be show-stopping here. Certainly would be a stumbling block at FA, but this isn't that. Otherwise, pretty good read and fairly accessible for a technical topic. @IntentionallyDense: if you have any specific sections or sentences you want me to take a closer look at, just ping me and I'll be happy to take another pass at it. @Stivushka: Good work on the article. Look forward to seeing this promoted in the near future. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @ThaesOfereode, thanks for your review. I have taken into account your feedback. Brown Boveri now appears as Brown Boveri & Cie throughout the article. "Rich mixture" changed to "combustible air-fuel mixture" and links added to the section.Stivushka (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I have also added a little bit on Hans Holzwarth in the first paragraph (design and development section). The norm for these kinds of article is that biographical info is kept for a separate article about the inventor. That said in this case its I agree it's useful to understand the context under which the Holzwarth gas turbine was developed. Stivushka (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Happy to help. Definitely looks better with the contextual info. I've done a minor copyedit for links, endashes, and other minor MOS concerns. Feel free to reach out if another second opinion is needed. Best of luck on the rest of the review. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

This was exactly what I was looking for. Thank you for taking the time to give a second opinion. IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Happy to be of assistance. Thanks for making sure your review is thorough and fair. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.