Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ice drilling/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2018 [1].

Ice drilling[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article will tell you more than you ever wanted to know about how to get through two miles of ice and bring back useful scientific information while doing it. I had to cut a great deal of historical information from the article for size reasons (it may show up here one day in history of ice drilling), but the article is still quite long; I believe it brings together all the key information. I hope you find the topic as interesting as I do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up most of the diagrams
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You might consider centre-aligning the hot water drill schematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.
  • Suggest reviewing captions for grammar
    I assume I'm missing something obvious, but I couldn't see any problems; can you point me at whatever you're seeing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The thermal drill caption is unclear to me, 1967 image needs hyphenating, core dog caption is not a complete sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For the first point I deleted most of the caption and changed the text to specifically refer to the diagrams; there's really not enough room in the caption to explain what the diagram shows. The other two points are fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Prairie-dog-drill_lake-vida_cropped.jpg: not sure the FUR presented is strong enough
    Agreed; removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Utah_snow_sampler_(cropped).png: the publisher and the author's article suggest that it is a state rather than federal work - can you elaborate on why it would be federal? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's known as the Federal Sampler, which was done under the aegis of the US Soil Conservation Service. Looking into it further, the image comes from this document, which precedes federal involvement, so it is not the work of a federal employee. Do you happen to know what license Digital Commons uses? If it's compatible with Wikipedia licensing perhaps we can still use it. In the meantime I've removed the image from the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Digital Commons is an IR platform - different institutions use it in different ways, I don't think it has a universal default license. Compare for example Purdue and Georgetown's licensing statements. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki, I've made changes above; can you let me know if you know about the Digital Commons license? And I have another question about image licenses; this image is a very close copy of the original, which is on page 324 of this paper. It's not identical; I eliminated one diagram and redrew everything rather than simply tracing, but the dimensions are close to identical, because they really have to be. For the other diagrams I had more leeway in varying the reproduction so that the design is slightly different; here, partly because these are complex diagrams, I wasn't able to make the diagram as distinct. Is this acceptable? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, as always. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor[edit]

  • I'll post some comments. Since this is such a long article, it'll take me a few days to get through this reading closely. ceranthor 15:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments through "Flexible drillstem rigs"
  • In the lead, why does ice cores link to The Ice Forest?
    Must have been a slip of the keyboard. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1966, a US team successfully drilled through the Greenland ice sheet at Camp Century, at a depth of 1387 m" - why no conversion into ft? (this will likely continue throughout the article; so the question applies to the whole article)
    I have mostly written humanities articles before this so am not too familiar with the rules on units; I might well have this wrong. This is a scientific article so per WP:UNIT I was thinking I should use SI units. The original sources sometimes use imperial units, but because it's the absolute values that matter here, not the numeric value in a particular unit, I couldn't see any reason to give them (with a conversion of course) in the article. Not sure I've been consistent on this throughout the article, but that's the goal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "such as piezometers,[10] or cameras," - surely if they were just cameras they wouldn't have their own name. I think a slightly more elaborate explanation is warranted here
    The piezometers are to measure pressure. I've made the structure a little more parallel; I hope it's clearer now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " IceCube, a large astrophysical project, required numerous optical sensors to be placed in boreholes 2.5 km deep at the South Pole.[12]" - unclear why this relates to the rest of the paragraph
    IceCube is mentioned as an example of a huge drilling project -- there were nearly a hundred deep holes drilled. The paragraph is supposed to be an overview of different reasons to drill, and neutrino sensors that require deep holes in ice seems worth mentioning as an unusual example. I've reworded it a bit to make the connection clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The discovery of layers of aqueous water, and of over a hundred subglacial lakes" - why over and not more than? (also assume this will come up multiple times; so more of a question for the whole article)
    Just poor word choice; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The fluid must have a low kinematic viscosity to reduce tripping time" - this seems like it would be tough to understand to a general reader; what's kinematic viscosity as opposed to normal viscosity, and what's tripping time?
    I changed it to just "viscosity". Tripping time is defined in the sentence just above -- it's the time it takes to take the drill all the way out of the hole (tripping out) or put it all the way in (tripping in); or generally it's just time spent tripping (doing either one). Tripping time is unproductive time, since you're not drilling, so you want the drill string to move quickly; if the drilling fluid has high viscosity it will slow down the trips. Does this need more clarification? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many glaciers are temperate, meaning that they contain "warm ice": ice that is at melting temperature throughout." - confused by this... so are they already melting, then? is it still considered ice at that point?
    This is a point that surprised me when I learned about it, but it's true as written: many glaciers are at 0 degrees Centigrade throughout their mass. I assume it's possible because ice has such a high latent heat of melting; it takes a great deal of heat to change ice at zero degrees into water at zero degrees, so the temperature stabilizes across the glacier. This means that water in a hole in a temperate glacier will not quickly refreeze. I didn't want to digress into this in the article, because the article isn't really about glaciers, but perhaps a note would be useful? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At greater depths, the air disappears into clathrates and the ice becomes stable again" - Definitely think you should provide a brief explanation of clathrate compounds
    Done; how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Louis Agassiz used iron rods to drill holes in the Unteraargletscher," - no need to link agassiz twice
    Unlinked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For holes deeper than about 2 m" - is the about really necessary to describe hypothetical holes? (same with "Drilling deeper than about 6 m")
    I don't see it as a problem, but I don't think it hurts to cut it, so I've removed "about" -- there were four places I'd used it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sidewinders have proved popular with investigators." - bit unclear to me what you intend by investigators here; like principal investigators?
    Yes, that's what I meant; probably too technical a word to use here. Changed to "researchers". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "inhomogeneous mixture of ice and rock" - while inhomogenous is fine, I think it's an odd word to use, as opposed to something like heterogeneous... could you clarify why you used that particular adjective here?
    Just poor word choice again; changed to "heterogeneous". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Flexible drillstem rigs use a drillstring that is continuous, so that it doesn't have to be assembled or disassembled, " - contraction
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems extremely comprehensive, and it's very clear and well-written. I expect that I'll support once I read the rest of the article. But here are some starting thoughts. ceranthor 16:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More Comments
  • "Known as Philberth probes,[155] these devices were designed by Karl and Bernhard Philberth in the 1960s as way to store nuclear waste in the Antarctic, but were never used for that purpose;[154] instead, they were adapted to use for glaciological research, reaching a depth of 1005 m and sending temperature information back to the surface when tested in 1968 as part of the Expédition Glaciologique Internationale au Groenland (EGIG).[156][157]" - just a nitpick, but I think this could just be two separate sentences instead of using the semicolon
    Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The drill is expected to make use of solar power in operation, meaning it must survive on less than 100 W when in sunlight." - do drills really have to "survive"?
    Changed to "be able to function"; less poetic, but you're right that survive is probably not the right word. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Drills may be designed with more than one anti-torque system in order to take advantage of the different performance of the different designs in different kinds of snow and ice. For example, a drill may have skates to be used in hard firn or ice, but also have a leaf-spring system, which will be more effective in soft firn." - is there meant to be a citation here?
    Oops. Yes; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, I think this is solid, so I'll happily support. ceranthor 01:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! For both the review and the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • Ref 2 require pp
  • Ref 24 requires ndash not hyphen
  • Ref 25 likewise
  • Refs 33, 34, 39, 85, 86: The publisher should be given, as well as (or instead of) the website address. The publisher is Schlumberger, for which there is a useful wikilink
  • Ref 44: Same issue – the publisher is National Ice Core Laboratory
  • Ref 60: Zagorodnov (1998) - no source listed
  • Ref 64: Publisher is AMS Inc (no wikilink)
  • Ref 114: Publisher is Design World
  • Refs 115 and 170: publisher is British Antarctic Survey
  • Ref 134: Publisher is US Ice Drilling program
  • Ref 160: Zagorodnov et al. (1998) – no source listed
  • Ref 162: Publisher is United States Department of Agriculture
  • Sources list: Something is amiss with the source listed immediately under "Koci" – it appears to have been truncated. The link goes to an error message.
  • I can't find citations to Gillet, Donnou et al
  • Nor to Reynaud and Courdouan
  • Nor to Talalay et al (2015)
  • Nor to Theodórsson

Otherwise, sources are in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton: The pp, ndash, and publisher issues have all been corrected. The Zagorodnov paper was missing from the list of sources; I've added it and fixed ref 60 to say "et al." Three of the uncited sources have been removed; Reynaud and Courdouan was mis-spelled in the note and has been fixed.
That leaves the cite below Koci. It was mangled by Citation bot; I'll report it as a bug. I'm uncertain as to whether the format I used (which I've now restored) is the best one for a patent; I think I found it in another FA that cited a patent, but I no longer recall for certain. Do you think it's OK as is? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The format for the patent looks OK, though I seem to remember a piece of ancient wisdom (I think via Ealdgyth} that one should not mix "Citation" and "Cite" templates in the same article – I forget why. If you use "Cite patent" you will get exactly the same output, thus: "ch 240634, Koechlin, René, "Procédé pour sonder les glaciers et installation pour sa mise en oeuvre", published 1 May 1946 " If you're unhappy with this format you could always do it manually to get:

Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead with the manual format (cite patent gives me a harv error since I don't use anchors). Thanks for the thorough review; much appreciated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

  • Ice drilling allows scientists studying glaciers and ice sheets to gain access to what is beneath the ice, to take measurements in the interior of the ice, or to retrieve samples. - am not a fan of this sentence - it seems to jump to why we do it without saying what it is. Not necessarily a deal-breaker as I recognize it's sorta obvious so repeating it is "drilling in ice" sounds dumb...need to think on this..
    I had some trouble with this sentence for the same reason you give, but it seems to me to be one of those cases where it makes no sense to give a straight definition. What MOS:FIRST asks that the page title be the subject of the first sentence and that's true here. I'm open to suggestions for improvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    stricken as I can't think of an alternative. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ice must be cut through, broken up, or melted.- sounds a bit how to-ey, could be just , "The ice can be cut through, broken up, or melted." (actually there are a few other "must"s that would be good to replace if possible...
    That whole section uses "must" a lot because it's about constraints; these are the things you must do, or must be able to cope with, if you want to drill in ice. I don't think "can" or "should" would carry the same meaning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ok, point taken. Can see the validity of this view. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Temperature section, do we have more of an idea of what degrees wam and cold ice are?
    Warm ice means the ice is at 0° C; I've added that in parentheses. Cold ice is not really strictly defined; it's anything colder than that in theory. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The rest looks okay on read-through but it's a hard topic to casually read. It is also a really long article (72 kb prose) - do you think there is anything that can be relegated to a daughter article?
    I took out History of ice drilling, but I'm having a hard time seeing another natural cut, because it's still something of a survey, with one or two paragraphs on lots of different aspects of the topic. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite it being so big, do you think a mention of possible ice drilling on Europa is worthwhile at the end?
    Good idea. I added a mention at the end of the autonomous probes section; I didn't go into detail because it appears to be very similar technology to what's already described in that section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cas, any thoughts on my responses above? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, tentative support - some segments appeared at first glance to be quite wordy, so I looked to see about trimming segments or making them more concise, but no solutions were evident. It's certainly comprehensive (bit I'm no expert) and the prose is ok too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cas. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - good info, but needs organization[edit]

Generally my only concern is that there are two many sub-sections, ones that could be merged with items above that would aid both clarity and readability.

  • I like the lede, 3 pars that really cover the content.
  • I edited the lede caption for clarity. I read the numbers as dates the first time and my brain refused to led go of that. I made a few other minor edits like comma placement and such, and added some converts.
    Your edits look fine to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Proof of glacier motion was quickly forthcoming" - how did coring do that? The article on the topic reveals nothing. I'd suggest at least an extension to this sentence to clarify. If added, consider putting a para break after this statement. I suspect the "Borehole inclination" statement is addressing this, and if so, it should be moved up into this section rather than leading the next para, which is mostly about a different topic anyway.
    I'd like to bring history of ice drilling to FAC eventually; it's currently a mess after it reaches 1950, but it does cover this story if you're curious. Glacier motion was demonstrated by drilling holes in a straight line across the glacier, and setting stakes in the holes and recording their positions from locations on the surrounding mountain. The result should have been Louis Agassiz's, but J.D. Forbes published his data first leading to a major scientific feud. To your point, I've explained this briefly in the article; let me know if that's enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " A weight repeatedly dropped on to the drill string" - generally one cannot push a rope, so I'm unclear what this is saying. I suspect it means that a weight on the same rope is raised and dropped using a secondary rope?
    "Drillstring" means anything between the surface and the drillhead; in some methods of drilling this is a rigid set of linked pipes. For cable tool drilling it was usually a connected set of metal rods, though other methods are possible. I've tweaked the text and added a note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then the entire drillstring" - this is missing a space, no? There's an article of that name, which should be linked in either event. The term is mostly "drillstring", but there are instances of "drill string" in the article too. Pick one!
    I went with "drill string", since that's how Schlumberger spells it in their oilfield glossary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is also possible to place a motor just above the bottom of the drillstring" - how does the motor stop its own rotation?
    This is a major design issue, covered later in the article. I think the problem here, and for the next few points, is that I was trying to split the major design constraints out, each into their own paragraph. Do you think the "Drilling design constraints" section would be better handled as a single long text section, so that the text can be more integrated and readable? If I do that, the reader doesn't have a clear list of what the constraints are. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a drilling fluid that is about the same density as the surrounding ice" - like what? A couple of examples here will greatly aid readability.
  • "Tools can be designed to be rotated by hand" - this has been mentioned, almost verbatim, above. I feel everything in this section could be easily merged above.
  • "If torque is supplied at the bottom of the hole" - ahhh. I shouldn't have to read this far to get this answer. This should be merged with the section at the top.
  • "so any drilling method that requires liquid" - this seems like something that should be borehole stability.
  • "Alternatively the hole can be cased down" - and this definitely should be in borehole stability.
    Both the above addressed by combining the permeability and stability sections. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many ice drilling locations are very difficult to access" - all of this seems like it should be in "Ice removal method", if at all. These criterion seem self-evident.
    I can cut it, but it is a major constraint; getting equipment to central Greenland is a huge logistical issue, even with USAF support which is usually forthcoming. A drill design innovation that might be revolutionary in the oilfield is useless in ice drilling unless you can get the equipment to the site, and the projects are expensive but don't have infinite funds. Would emphasizing these difficulties make it worth keeping this, or is it really too obvious to state as a design constraint? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    After thinking about it some more I've moved it to the "Ice removeal method" section as you suggested; this helps eliminate another short section per your other comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A percussion drill penetrates" - almost everything in the start of this paragraph is mentioned above.
    The goal was to separate the constraints from the designs, since otherwise the article has to point out the constraints as the designs deal with them, which is not very systematic for the reader. I've tried to address the repetition by cutting some of the percussion drilling details from the constraints section and moving them to the "Percussion drills" section; does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That gets me to "Cable-suspended", let's work on the ones above first. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Hand-carried mechanical drills" - are these hand-carried, or hand-operated? It seems the later.
    Yes, "hand-operated" is much better; changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maury, thanks for reviewing; I've made a pass through based on your comments and have left notes above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maury, do you have more comments? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will, but I've been busy IRL. I'll try to get some time tonight. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'm back. The upper part looks much better IMHO. Starting with the cable-suspended section:

  • "further up the drill. The cuttings can be transported" - para break?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bedrock.[113][115] Many" - and here, or maybe at end of the Many sentences?
    Done; this one makes a fairly short paragraph to my eyes, but I use a wide monitor so I think it's OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "borehole straight.[122] Since the pressure" - this comes after the mention of steam. A para break would work here, but perhaps the mention of steam should be separate. This part of the para is more about hose control, perhaps it could be rearranged by putting the mention of steam in the last para with an introduction like "Steam can be used in place of hot water..."
    I went with the second option. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " firn to the impermeable ice layer. The pump" - suggest something like "because above this level the meltwater escapes."
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the drillhead.[132] A different problem" - para break, different problem, different para
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "each coring run. Another approach" - para break.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "makes this unnecessary.[22][169] The sampler must" - para break.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pushed in. A sampler may" - here too?
    I didn't add this one; I think there's continuity of thought here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with four cutters have produced unsatisfactory performance" - any details here?
    Details are on page 17 of this paper. Given how much detail there is in the article already I decided to just say "unsatisfactory performance", but I could bring in some of Talalay's discussion of Schwander and Rufli's paper. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And now dinner. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Johnbod[edit]

  • Given the daunting amount of detail on technical matters, which I know is the main subject, the section on "goals" seems very broad brush and underlinked. There are links to isotope and neutrino which are unlikely to help a reader that much, but am I right to think that there are no links to Marine isotope stage, Paleothermometer, and Timeline of glaciation, to name but three relevant articles? Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking that ice core was the right place to give more details about those -- the goal of ice drilling is to get ice cores; the goal of ice cores is the data. But I guess that does the reader a disservice. There's already a link to paleoclimatology, which I think covers paleothermometer; I added a sentence about past solar variation and marine isotope stages, and linked the latter. This is really the article about the technology, rather than the science, so I'm uncertain if more is needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks, but for example "glacier flow and accumulation rates" could be linked to Timeline of glaciation. Johnbod (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done, though now I've done it I'm not sure it's right. Much drilling on glaciers is to study that particular glacier's flow and accumulation rates; it's the cores that give us the palaeoclimatic data that allow us to build the timeline of glaciation, so it's quite indirect. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • I would add the date (c. 16,250 years ago) to the GISP ice core caption.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to take measurements in the interior of the ice, or to retrieve samples." "and to retrieve" sounds right to me. Ditto with "or for other scientific research".
    Both done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " IceCube, a large astrophysical project, required numerous optical sensors to be placed in holes 2.5 km deep,"" This does not seem quite right. According to the article on IceCube, the sensors are placed between 1450 and 1450 metres deep over a cubic km of ice.
    It's correct; per the source the holes were 2.5 km deep, although the instrumented depth is only 1.5km. That source doesn't explain the reason for drilling so much deeper than the instrumented depth, but I can probably dig it out if you're curious. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have clarified it now. Instruments are placed in each hole between 1450 and 2450 metres, so as to monitor a 1 km3 of ice. Your source says 1 m3, which would be no use detecting neutrinos, and the official source at [2] confirms it is a km. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "last interglacial period" Does this refer to the Eemian? If so, it would be more helpful to link to it rather than to the generic interglacial.
    Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rotary mineral drilling" I assume mineral drilling is through rock, but this should be clarified.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Meltwater in boreholes in warm ice will not refreeze, but for colder ice, meltwater is likely to cause a problem, and may freeze the drill in place, so thermal drills that operate submerged in the meltwater they produce, and any drilling method that results in water in the borehole, are difficult to use in such conditions." I am missing something here. Why does not a thermal drill prevent freezing the drill in place?
    Because whatever heat is in the meltwater is absorbed by the ice around it if the ice is colder than freezing; the ice is an enormous heatsink. Eventually the meltwater cools to 0° C, and freezes. For warm ice (at 0° C), there's no heat transfer once the water cools to 0° C, so the water doesn't freeze. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To retrieve a core, an annulus of ice must be removed" I have not come across "annulus" before. Link to Annulus (mathematics)?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no longer than 6 m" I would spell out metres.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A tripod erected over the hole allows a pulley to be set up, and a cable can then be used to repeatedly raise and drop the tool. This method, which has been used for millennia in drilling in rock, is known as cable tool drilling." cable tool drilling could be linked as [[Drilling rig#Cable tool drilling|cable tool drilling]]. Also is there reliable evidence that the method has been used for millennia? I doubt whether Talalay's book is an RS for this.
    You're right he's not the best source; I removed it as an unnecessary aside, but I wouldn't be too surprised if it were true, given how old mining is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "currently 10.3 t." Presumably tons, but I would spell out.
    Given as "10.3 t" in the source, but he uses SI units throughout, so I think it's safe to say this is tonnes. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments
  • "One design suggested using a hot water to drill via a hose" a hot water?
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as way to store nuclear waste" as a way?
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for use in experiments that do not depend on stratigraphy, such as searches for living organisms" This appears to say that if living organisms are found on Mars, it is not important to know the depth at which they are found. Is this correct? I could not check the source as the details of the Cardell article are incomplete. Also this article mentions that the ability of any probe to survive high temperature sterilisation would be crucial.
    The source says "Vertical sampling resolution is of interest only for some experiments: For others, notably astrobiological investigations, a large quantity of meltwater is desired without regard to stratigraphy." I would expect that stratigraphy, like any other data, would be of interest if it could be captured, but it's not necessary for the main question here. Thanks for the link; I've added a note about surviving sterilization, cited to that page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have made clear. I was also querying that full details are not given for the Cardell source. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, should have realized. I went looking for the details, and soon remembered why the citation looks the way it does. The paper was a poster presentation at the 35th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference; it was never independently published, but is available on the website as a PDF. On this page, if you search for "Cardell", you'll find a link to the paper and a link to this list of what was on show at that session. I suppose "Lunar and Planetary Science XXXV" could be the publisher, but we don't normally put publishers in for papers, since typically a journal is cited. I've added a link to the paper, and I've put the conference name in where the journal would normally go. Brian, is there a better way to do this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As the paper hasn't been published in a journal, you could name the Lunar and Planetary Institute, on whose website it appears, as the publisher. I'm not aware of a "conference=" field, but ""Lunar and Planetary Science XXXV" could be given as "work=". Would that resolve the issue? Brianboulton (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems to work -- it's similar to what I had but the publisher is not italicized, which is reasonable since it's not a publication title. Thanks, Brian. Dudley, how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not look right to me. It is not a journal and I am doubtful about saying the conference is the publisher. I suggest {{cite report|last=Cardell|first=G.|last2=Hecht|first2=M.H.|last3=Carsey|first3=F.D.|last4=Engelhardt|first4=H.|last5=Fisher|first5=D.|last6=Terrell |first6=C.|last7=Thompson|first7=J.|year=2004|title=The subsurface ice probe (SIPR): a low-power thermal probe for the Martian polar layered deposits|url=https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2004/pdf/2041.pdf|work=Lunar and Planetary Science XXXV|publisher=Lunar and Planetary Institute |accessdate=16 March 2018}} Does that look right to you Brian? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    PS If cite report does not look right to you I suggest the generic cite web. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to cite report. I agree the Institute is better as the publisher. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sensitive to 0.01–0.05 N" I would spell out newton.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In view of the great length of this article, I would suggest moving details of unsuccessful design to the history article.
    I'll go through and see what I can find to move on this basis. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another first rate article, although some of it is too technical for a layman like myself to understand. (See also my further comment on IceCube above.) Dudley Miles (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review; I read your comment on IceCube above, and I don't think any further change is needed to the article, is it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: We have three supports on this article, which has been at FAC for a very long time now. Maury Markowitz began a review although I'm not sure if it was completed, although there were a couple of pings. I see nothing in the review to delay this any further. Johnbod left a comment but I do not believe a full review was ever intended. Given that the three supporters left detailed reviews, I will promote shortly. If there are any further issues, these can be tackled after promotion. Sarastro (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - not "ever got round to" anyway. Happy to see promotion. Johnbod (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was planning to get back to this this weekend. I still have the bottom sections to go. Should we close anyway? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ice_drilling/archive1&oldid=832117448"