Talk:Injection moulding/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 01:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have review the article and put it on hold to clarify some issues:

I am concerned that the Equipment section lead and the mold section are too technical? What do you think?

Thanks.

Retrolord (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I don't think they're too technical. They could be a hell of a lot more technical, and Mold design is probably the central discipline in Injection molding. Before trying to improve this article I had actually been toying with the idea of creating a separate article called Injection mold design or something. It's up to you as the reviewer, and of course I have a stake in the article, but I think it flows well and fits with the rest of the article. --Kierkkadon^{talk/contribs} 02:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then the article is passed. Retrolord (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huzzah! --Kierkkadon^{talk/contribs} 02:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this pass. The lead does not fully summarize the article and I would like to see more citations in the "Process troubleshooting" section.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That better? I rewrote the lede, trimmed Process troubleshooting, added a couple of references. --Kierkkadon^{talk/contribs} 03:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I like the lead much better, although it still doesn't quite summarize everything (but not enough to be of huge concern). Still might want more citations (especially a bit more variety of sources if possible); Power requirements section needs a proper citation using a <ref> tag.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - This weekend I'll be spending some time in the huge academic library at my university. I should be able to get a lot of good references there. --Kierkkadon^{talk/contribs} 04:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]