Talk:Fusible plug

Experiments (clarification)

"...initially cast doubt on the practice of adding water..."

There's something missing from this first sentence, or something assumed to have been understood earlier in the article: when and/or under what circumstances is water being added? If it is when the plug has already melted, then this should be stated.

EdJogg (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. The sentence referred to "severe explosion will result if water is not put into the boiler quickly and the fire thrown out", earlier in the article.--Old Moonraker (talk) 05:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, much better. I try not to be pedantic about such things, but having been involved in a few FA reviews you start to become sensitive to such omissions. EdJogg (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Solid core fusible plugs

Solid-core plug

It needs to add coverage of solid core plugs (illus.) and the problem of homogeneous eutectic plugs that leak, but don't blow clear. I'll try to get to it tonight. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Valuable additions, both. Thanks for taking this up: it was all new to me.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fusible plug/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Images: Pass - copyright looks OK and images illustrate plug. You could consider finding an image of one in situ.

Stability: Pass - looks fine.

Neutral: Pass - looks fine.

Coverage: Provisional fail - This may be an issue of clarity, rather than coverage. Where are these plugs used today, and are they built in the same way as the ones described in the article? My first impression from the article was that this is a historical device used on reciprocating steam engines. However, the existence of current standards made me wonder whether there is any similar device on a steam turbine. I think this could be resolved by including a brief overview of how and where the device is used today.

Accurate and verifiable: Provisional fail Pass- A few more inline citations are needed to meet the GA criteria - I've added tags to the article where required. I'd imagine these can all be done from the refs you have already used.
The statement "Since 1888, the US Steamboat Inspection Service has required plugs to be made of pure banca tin" seems likely to be incorrect. Does this body still exist? The ASME standards referred to in reference 12 suggest current standards are not based on banca tin.

Reworded--Old Moonraker (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't see anything in reference 10 to support the statement that "The current U.S. standard specifies replacement after every 500 hours of use". The only mention of 500 hours is from the 1914 investigation, and that says that plugs not meeting specifications may show signs of deterioration after 500 hours, which is not the same thing. Am I missing something?

No, you aren't. This was an interpretation too far and has been removed.

A minor, non GA-related, point: the link at ref 12 doesn't seem to do anything useful! What was the intent? That ref replaced.--Old Moonraker (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well written: Provisional fail The writing is generally very good. I have a few minor points to raise:

• In the first para, you do mean "thrown out" (i.e. removed from) and not "put out" (i.e. extinguished), do you? I know little about steam engines, so forgive me if that is a stupid question!

Checked ref: the answer is "either". Added verbatim "or deadened" from the source.--Old Moonraker (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but would it be clearer for reader unfamiliar with the topic to say "removed or extinguished" instead? Feel free to disagree! 4u1e (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The usual term is "dropped". The fire is too big to extinguish, and too awkward to shovel out from above (for locomotive boilers at least). However the grate is either a rocking grate (very easy to tip these and drop the fire through them) or at least replaceable bars that can be lifted out in extremis and the fire pushed through the hole. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• The Maintenance section doesn't make it clear that the sources being referred to here are about 100 years old. Ref 10 suggests that standards have changed significantly since then, if I'm reading it correctly.

However, the structure of the article is letting it down at present.

• the lead does not summarise the whole article, covering only some of the material from 'Purpose' and 'History' and nothing from the other sections. It also contains more detail about the device itself than the equivalent part of the article. Suggest lead material is fully integrated into the text and a new lead written to summarise the article.
• The last sentence of the first para doesn't follow on from the preceding material. Suggest it should be moved to somewhere in the first para of 'Cored fusible plugs'.
• The issue of where and when the device was/is used identified above could also be sorted out as part of a restructuring.

• Improved. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion: On Hold. There's quite a lot to get through there, but it should not be too problematic providing the references are available. I'll suggest a seven day hold, but if good progress is being made, we can stretch that. 4u1e (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: 4u1e (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Some progress overall. I can't source one outstanding {{cn}} request and that sentence may have to go.--Old Moonraker (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That sentence removed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - haven't had as much time to keep an eye on this as I would like. At a very quick glance, you're making good progress, so let's continue on hold. I hope to be able to review what you've done more fully sometime over the weekend. 4u1e (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Whadya know - I had some time. I think we're nearly there. The relationship between the lead and the rest of the article is still wrong. Try this (in a sandbox): paste the whole of the lead into the first section of the main article, just after the heading 'Purpose'. Then read it through. Does it make sense? Perhaps move some of the sentences around and remove some duplication. Now write a brief one para summary of the article to replace the lead at the top of the article. Make any sense? 4u1e (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OK: I've had a go at re-distributing the material in the first two paragraphs along these lines. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment on lede -- do we really need to include air con here? The article suggests that such use is no longer current, and the lede also reads as though the plugs are used in tanks for carrying air con systems (!) I think it could be safely omitted from the lede.

Secondly, the final sentence of the 'Purpose' section has an 'it' that needs replacing. Strictly at present the 'it' corresponds to the hole mentioned at the start of the sentence, whereas the meaning of 'it' is actually 'a blowing fusible plug' or even 'the water passing through a blowing fusible plug', since it is that, not the hole, which might be thought to quench the fire, although I don't know how to describe such properly.

-- EdJogg (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This was my fix for the reviewer's point "the lead does not summarise the whole article", above. He/she was right: it didn't, but now it's better (I hope). The wording seeming to refer back to "tanks" needs a fix, though; I'll add an oxford comma (and that's a phrase I don't write very often). --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked it slightly - minor editing is allowable within the rules for passing or failing GAs - I think the lead's fine now. I don't think I can have changed the meaning of anything with my minor edits, but Moonraker, could you just check and then I think we're good to pass. For further development post GA I'd suggest you consider rearranging the text into chronological rather than topical order. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That's definitely stronger than my "comma", and fits with the refs. Thanks. I'll definitely look at changing to chron order, but after a bit of a rest first! --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, 4u1e's edits are good improvements. This is the strength of collaborative editing; when one (or two?) brains have got stuck with a rearranging of a sentence (even if they know it's wrong), another editor can get things moving again.... -- EdJogg (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)