Talk:Steel/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

I found the following problems:

~~The lead implies that the boundary between cast iron and steel is at 2.14%, while the first section and infobox both say that it is at 1.7%.~~
This needs to be reworded, because white cast irons start at 1.8% carbon, while steel can obviously have the same carbon content (source Smith & Hashemi). Wizard191 (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've resolved this now. Wizard191 (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~The lead says that the maximum amount of carbon that can be dissolved in iron is 2.14%, while the first section says it is 2.03%.~~
Degarmo claims that steel ends as 2.11% while Smith and Hashemi just rounded off at 2%. I'd like another source to back up the value before I make any changes. Wizard191 (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've rounded off to 2.1% and added a note as to why. Wizard191 (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As such, it requires extremely little thermal activation energy to form. What does 'it' refer to in this sentence?
I've completely reworked this paragraph and added a ref. Wizard191 (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cooling it so rapidly that the transformation to ferrite or pearlite does not have time to take place. It is strange that ferrite and pearlite are listed as alternatives, when pearlite is actually made of ferrite and cementite.
I've completely changed the wording so that the other transformations aren't listed, because there are many different types possible depending on the carbon content and speed of cooling. Wizard191 (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Large amounts of chromium and nickel (often 18% and 8%, respectively) are added to I think it is better to specify upper limits. As I know they can be very high up to 5o%.
Actually the minimum chromium content is what defines stainless steel, therefore I've reworded it to reflect this. Wizard191 (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence from ancient Sri Lanka show of steel production as early as 300 BC this duplicates what is said in the next subsection. I think all information about wootz should be consolidated into one subsection.
~~'Modern steelmaking' subsection should be merged with 'Modern production methods section'. There is no need to have two section about the same subject.~~
Done. Wizard191 (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Thermal treatment of steel' section is too short to justify its existence. It should be merged into the section about modern production methods. The direct link to http://www.crystec.com/kllthste.htm, which looks like an advertisement should be removed.
- I've removed the link spam. Wizard191 (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I propose that it actually gets merged into the "contemporary steel" section, because steel is not usually heat treated in the steelmaking process. Wizard191 (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  The section needs to be exanded or merged to some other section. Ruslik_Zero 12:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Done. Wizard191 (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article contains vast tracts of unreferenced information. I added {{cn}} tags after paragraphs and statements, which, in my opinion, need inline references.
Sinhalese: this probably refers to the work of Gill Juleff now of Exeter University

Merv: I regret, I do not even know who did this work.

I cannot help on quenching or work hardening. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources on Merv appear to be: Merkel, J, Feuerbach, A, and Griffiths, D. 'Analytical investigation of crucible steel production at Merv, Turkmenistan' IAMS: Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies. Vol. 19, pp. 12-14. June 1995; AM Feuerbach, D Griffiths, JF Merkel in Craddock PT, Janet Lang (eds). Mining and Metal Production , (London 2003: British Museum Press). I do not have immediate access to either work.

Sinhalese: I have located reference and will add it. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reference added, but the source I found refers to "mid to late 1st millenium AD", not c200 BC. I do not have access to Juleff's Nature article, but it is also quoted as referring to that period. There is an article in the same journal by T R Anantharamu and 4 others on Crucible steel in India, referring largely to the 19th century in Karnataka. However, this refers to "the Alexandrian alchemist Zosimos", presumably Zosimos of Panopolis of c.300 BC describing how Indians prepared steel. This (rather than archaeology) would seem to be the source of the date. Unfortunately the WP article on Zosimos concentrates of citations of him in apocryphal scriptures and the views of Carl Jung, rather than what he wrote about chemistry. Nevertheless, the date may need flagging for a better citation. I also notice a reference to a "nyt" (New York Times) website in this section. We should not be using derivative newspaper reports in a GA. Note there are further references including WOOTZ STEEL: AN ADVANCED MATERIAL OF THE ANCIENT WORLD by S. Srinivasan and S. Ranganathan cited in the WP article Wootz steel.

Both solved: see Ann Feuerbach, 'An investigation of the varied technology found in swords, sabres and blades from the Russian Northern Caucasus' IAMS 25 for 2005, 27-43. However these are citing earlier work that I have not seen.

Peterkingiron (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The statement about steel production in Sri Lanka in 300 BC is still referenced to Gavin, which only says about 1st Millennium AD. Ruslik_Zero 12:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken care of all the {{cn}} tags. Unfortunately, I know nothing about the above topic, so I can't help there. Wizard191 (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are left with two poor quality references (19 and 23). Both appear to be derived from accounts of Juleff's work, conflated with Zosimos. I think the best solution will be to delete them, but the reference to Roman steel still has no citation. This is not my subject either. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by your Ann Feuerbach reference. The only thing it states is that the Indian subcontinent knew of crucible steel production by the 3rd Century AD. As such, I don't think it's applicable to the info it's trying to support. Perhaps the best thing to do is just delete the unsupported sentence(s). Wizard191 (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~The references need work. Some of them are bare weblinks, but should have titles, authors, dates etc.~~
I've fixed up the bare links. Please advise if any of the other refs need formatting. Wizard191 (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~The {{globalize}} tag should be resolved.~~
I don't think that this is a real concern. There is only one state about the US while the rest is pretty generic. As such, I think the template can be removed. Wizard191 (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik_Zero 12:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that the "early modern steel" section title be change, because, to me, its misleading. Based on the "modern" part it makes me think it should be part of the "modern production methods" section. Wizard191 (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wholly agree. To me "modern steel making" starts with Bessemer. The difficulty, probably arises from the appearance of a section on the blast furnace at the beginning of the modern section, whereas the wright iron used for bliaster steel came from (mostly Swedish) blast furnaces. In fact the new methods of the late 19th century are (I suspect) obsolete or obsolecent. The answer may be to move that paragraph up and provide a larger heading covering both early modern and modern, but the blister and crucible sections need to be grouped together with and separate from later methods. I will await comments before attempting changes. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object. Ruslik_Zero 18:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it clears up the ambiguity, it works for me. Wizard191 (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restructured, not quite as promised. I have not dealt with hermal treatment. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your new structure looks real good. As for the thermal treatment section, see my comment at point 8. Wizard191 (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More tidying up on history done. I have also added to Blister steel so that the two articles conform in content. The claim about Italy appears to come from the work of C. S. Smith, but is dismissed by Barraclough, whose view I have followed, though indicating the source of the Italian claim in the more detailed article. This led me to case hardening, where I found a distinctly strange account of the chemistry, which I hav accordingly tagged as dubious. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining issues

Information about Roman steel is unlikely to come from the work of Wagner, writing about ferrous industry in China. I have therefore tagged this. I expect the information also appears in another article somewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am satisfied with the progress made, so I will keep the article. Ruslik_Zero 16:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]