Talk:475 °C embrittlement/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Textual issues

I've fixed a few minor punctuation and formatting issues.

The first sentence of the lead is definitely on the difficult side for the start of an article; we aim to make at least this part of technical articles simple and clear (without being misleading), and not intimidatingly technical. "due to spinodal decomposition of the ferrite phase" is the phrase most in need of simplification here at the top of the article (it's obviously fine lower down). I think we first need to say something about what ferrite and austenite are (in very basic terms), and then we need to find some way of explaining the decomposition, by talking about how the crystal structures rearrange and simplify, or something of that sort. fixed but not sure if this an acceptable Lead

"with no change the mechanical properties" - seems the word "in" is missing. Done

"Ferrite" is overlinked in the lead. fixed

In "Duplex stainless steel", it would be nice to begin by explaining what "a mixture of austenite and ferrite microstructure" means, maybe using terms like "small crystals of metal" or something of that sort, to get the reader started. The first sentence of the section is rather long and wandering, so you might like to split it up for clarity. fixed and text expanded

* In "Duplex stainless steel", the second sentence begins with "These": what does that word refer to? It sounds as though it means "different DSS mixtures", but it doesn't say so. I suspect you should explain a bit earlier what different mixtures are included under the DSS name: at the moment there are percentage ranges a bit further down. Or perhaps you could just begin by saying that there are ranges of various components of DSS, to be covered later. fixed Perhaps, too, you ought to add a quick sentence on why one might use more or less chromium or molybdenum, etc, and whether these choices affect embrittlement? really interesting question. I added a paragraph about that to the end of the Age hardening by spinodal decomposition section

Suggest "DSS" in first image be expanded to "Duplex stainless steel". Done

In the first image caption (a terrific image, by the way) you say that ferrite phase forms the matrix, but there seem to be both blue and green matrix areas? - and possibly other colours too? Maybe a word of explanation is needed there. thanks for the compliment. I added another image to explain the 1st image so I hope both now can convey what is meant by the image

You introduce "slip system" without definition or wikilink; "slip bands" is wikilinked a little further down but not explained. Perhaps these key terms need a little introduction? wikilinked, slip band explained as it might be advance for someone interested in embrittlement

"Austenite/Austenitic" is overlinked 3 times in "Duplex stainless steel". fixed

"Ni[ckel]" is overlinked in "Duplex stainless steel". fixed

"Spinodal decomposition" is overlinked in "Mechanical effect". You might like to replace that link with a "further" link at the top of that section. amended as requested

In "Age hardening...", I think that "precipitation" deserves a bit of explanation, as this is about hardening, not about materials precipitating out of solution? (Or perhaps the two are indeed related ... in which case, it'd be nice if you said so, briefly.) the G-phase is the percipitate, it is affect is explained in the Consequences section. I removed the see also to precipitation hardening and linked coherent percipitates to the Precipitation hardening#Coherency hardening

"Σ3 {112}<111> ferrite deformation twinning" needs explanation or wikilinking, or both. wikilinked for now

"Uphill diffusion": that certainly sounds surprising or indeed impossible, so a word of explanation would be helpful to the general reader. fixed

"Miscibility gap" is nicely explained, but in the sentence after it is used. Maybe rearrange? Ithought it does not fit to explain somehing before it is been used. Tried to explained where I used but it makes the sentence longer and breaks the flow

In "Mechanical effect", there are 5 pairs of parentheses in the first paragraph, which makes it very choppy to read. I think it would be better to expand the number of sentences so that you describe things basically one at a time, to build the general reader's understanding of the topic. sentenced rephrased and re-arranged

In the second paragraph of "Mechanical effect", you helpfully explain what G-phase precipitates are, but the term is already in use in the first paragraph. Some rearrangement is needed. I'm not sure if there's anything you can link to here. sentenced rephrased and re-arranged

The sentence "Cr and Mn may substitute ... ... because it appears prominently ... " has "it" but "they" seems to be required for the sense? sentenced rephrased

"galvanic corrosion" should be wikilinked. Done

In "Treatment", "Cyclic loading" isn't introduced. I guess it has to do with pulsed current, i.e. there is a cycle of heating? This needs to be explained. separated to a different sentence and wikilinked

Radiation accelerates it but changes its nature: for the better or the worse? Why? this about spinodal decomposition and although it is under the treatment section, I think it is more of a trivia. The 'why' here will required a seperate article about radiation affect on duplex steel, but if accelerates the process of decomposition it is generally increasing the process of embrittlement as mentioned in the text that Spinodal decomposition increases the hardening ... (did not include this bit because i assume it is understood)

References

Referencing is good and solid.

Some citations would be improved with page number(s), e.g. [7] cites a 64-page document for a single claim. [3] cites a whole chapter for a basic introduction, which isn't wrong but could perhaps be tightened. used both references to expand the intro about DSS

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I found this a fascinating article and nearly all so well explained that this non-metallurgist could follow it without effort - above I've pointed up some places where the wording could be improved. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):
Ref formatting is ok and mainly consistent, barring punctuation of initials.

b. (citations to reliable sources):
All sources used appear suitably reputable for the topic; most are journal papers.

c. (OR):
Spot checks are fine.

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
There's no sign of this, either Earwig or manual.
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):
It certainly seems so to a non-specialist.

b. (focused):
Article is clear and concise.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Well, I assume good faith here. The article does not describe controversies among metallurgists, but gives many sources which appear to concur on the basic facts given.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:

No sign of issues here.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
All images are useful and have suitable captions.
Overall:
Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

@Chiswick Chap: I have replied above in green, hope that is ok. The only two things that I did not expand on the defination of defromation twinning and slips as they are normally well known but I provided a wikilink FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is greatly improved, and it's a worthy GA. Thank you for the work; I hope you will feel able to take the time to pick an article from the GAN list to review. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.