Talk:Gravity bong/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take up this review - I'll leave some initial comments within 24 hours. I mainly focus on copy editing issues but judging the size of this article the review shouldn't take that long. Thanks! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
It is well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Sorry for coming to the review late as I've had a busy weekend! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

Lead[edit]

"A gravity bong is a method of consuming cannabis, tobacco, or other smokeable substances" - perhaps tobacco should be linked for convenience? And also by smokeable is this mainly referring to herbal or something else?

Fixed

Other than that, the lead complies per WP:LEAD as the other paragraph describes how a bong works and is operated.

Bucket bong[edit]

When I was reading through this I was worried that this whole section is too informal - it's written like a direct instruction on how to make a bong! These are the prose problems listed below. If these are addressed to, this section would meet the GA criteria.

"A gravity bong also called a bucket bong, or just a "bucket", uses a large plastic bottle" - grammatically this isn't great. How about: A gravity bong, also known as a bucket bong (or just a "bucket") uses a large plastic bottle...

Reworded, now says: The construction of a bucket bong (or simply a "bucket") calls for a large plastic bottle.

"...uses a large plastic bottle (about 2 liters)" - not essential, but could this measurement be converted using a conversion template?

Done

"The string and bottom of the bottle is then sprayed with hairspray or lighter fluid (some sort of flammable material)" - this can be worded better. I'd feel better if hairspray was removed and replaced with something broader such as a common gas lighter or a flame?

I removed this entire section, since it is not referenced and I found no online sources which detail such a method.

"It is important however that no flammable liquid is above the string." - this doesn't explain why?

Removed section (see above)

"The bottom is then lit on fire and the bottle is held upside down as just the bottom portion to be removed burns" - I'm sorry, I've re-read this over and over and still don't know what 'to be removed burns' mean!

Removed section (see above)

"...once it is immersed to its neck in water or some other liquid." - some other fluid?? Please clarify!

Fixed

"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" - it is good practise to refer to the one using any product as either a user or consumer in this case. This crops up again in the next sentence and later on in this section...

Fixed, but you should double-check to make sure it reads okay.

"Brian Griffin noted the aesthetic downside of a gravity bong to be that it looks like "something a janitor whipped up using items from his closet." - should this really be here if he is a fictional character? Also it doesn't explain who Brian Griffin is as it isn't linked (I for one knew who he was but you have to bear in mind that a lot of people reading this article wouldn't!)

That's not the dog its an author's pseudonym or just his real name ([1]). Nonetheless, I added "Author" before mentioning his name to avoid confusion.

Whoops that was embarrassing! Thanks for clearing that one up. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Griffin also wrote that the bong is quite difficult to conceal, saying: "they can be hard to hide if civic-minded parents or parole officers plan on making visits." - should this really be here if this is fictional?

See comment above

"I. M. Stoned, author of Weed: 420 Things You Didn't Know (or Remember) about Cannabis called the bucket bong "out of the world" and "killer sweet." - I. M. Stoned... is this for real?

Hahahah yeah, the about the author section of google books says: "I.M. Stoned is a pseudonym for the writer who claims he never smoked, but perpetually has the munchies and has seen The Big Lebowski and Pineapple Express too many times to be completely innocent." I figure since it was published through Adams Media (part of F+W Media), it gives it some credibility.

Waterfall bong[edit]

"a brass cut nozzle or something else to act as a bowl and transport smoke to the bottle," - this isn't encyclopaedic! Please clarify

Removed

The whole section should be re-written in a more formal manner if this were to pass the GAN. So far it looks like a casual instruction list on how to make a waterfall bong.

Reworded and removed several things which add to it's "how-to" feel.

Comparison to other herbal comsumption methods[edit]

"The bong is typically used for smoking cannabis and is generally not recommended for smoking tobacco, or other herbal substances" - I'm confused. The lead opened up with "A gravity bong is a method of consuming cannabis, tobacco, or other smokeable substances" and now this section is advising against that saying it should typically be used to smoke cannabis?

I believe it's fixed now because of the lead

Legal status[edit]

Although this isn't vital, but could this section be expanded to mention the legal status of both cannabis and bongs in other countries?

Good catch, Doing...
Done

On hold[edit]

The article is compact and all references are in check, however I am very concerned about this passing the GAN the way it is now. The whole article is suffering from serious copyediting issues that need to be addressed first before it can even meet the GA criteria. A lot of this article is written very informally and non-encyclopaedic. Personally I would love this article to make GA so tomorrow I will make some minor fixes to the article, but if you can address every issue I have mentioned above and completely re-write a few sections so that the prose flows smoothly into each sentence (see the GA criteria) then this article would have a good hope of passing the GAN. I will put this article on hold for seven days and if those issues are clarified before then I'll happily pass this! Thanks, ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy review Jaguar, and I do apologize for the poor English throughout. I wrote most of this article back in junior year of high school and this is how it looked before [2]. My writing skills have definitely improved since then and after a quick read-through I nominated it at GAN. CrowzRSA 00:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted[edit]

The article has definitely improved since yesterday and now meets the GA criteria! Well done on addressing every point I had mentioned above, the prose of the article is now much better than it was before. All references were already in check and a couple of sections have improved a lot since this GAN was opened (and its previous GAN). I will be happy to award this its well deserved GA status. Well done on all the extra work! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]