Jump to content

Talk:Big Stan (drill rig)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

B-class criteria

[edit]

User:Etriusus, have you personally checked the article against all of the B-class criteria? If so, and it passes all of them, why have you not rated the article as B-class? If it does not meet all of the B-class criteria, why have you nominated for GA? Please ping with reply. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbsouthwood, to my understanding, nominating for GA is an implicit endorsement of the article's quality. While technically yes, the page does qualify at B criteria, the assessment scale is somewhat nebulous prior to GA/A-class/FA quality and is subject to interpretation. This is honestly the first time I have seen someone bring this up, and a cursory glance of Wikipedia:Good article nominations shows Stubs, Starts, and C-class articles that have been nominated. In my own work as a GA reviewer/nominator, I've observed that a large proportion (likely a majority) of GA noms are classed at Start and C-class. Is this a mixture of complacency and fear to WP:BEBOLD, probably, but I digress. I am wondering why this article specifically caught your eye.
Unless there has been a new guideline published during my month-long hiatus, there is no rule that states a GA nom Must be rated as B class (please link if there is). This also doesn't account for some Wikiprojects that prefer third-party assessors to give B-class ratings and actively discourage self assessment. Personally, I do not like assessing my own articles as B class since there is a certain level of bias I will have as the article's creator/primary author. If you want to review/reassess the page, I would gladly welcome it, otherwise I see this as a non-issue. Cheers, Etrius ( Us) 13:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Etriusus, No new guideline, The article just looks lightweight and minimally structured for GA, and I wanted to be sure you had made sure it covers the topic adequately, since you would be expected to make up any deficits. When I looked at the article I wondered how the rig works, and how it is split (what each of the two parts is made up of), and feel that a bit more explanation would be appropriate. Either in the article or by linking to an article on the class of drilling rig it represents. There are also a few terms that I think should be clarified. I will tag them inline. I assume there is no free licensed image available. Assessing articles one has started or contributed to in a major way is explicitly generally acceptable, and even if one feels a bit biased, going through the process can help ensure that the criteria are checked reasonably well. I was not aware of projects that actively discourage it, and am surprised that any have enough members to afford making assessment less likely to be done. Anyone who is competent to do a GA assessment should be acceptable for B-class assessment. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbsouthwood Understood, thank you for the feedback. I love niche topics on Wikipedia but that comes with the concession that the information will be limited to some extent. This article suffers from a rather unique problem, that there was a big craze for machines like this in the 2000s/early 2010s but the hype has fallen largely to the wayside. As a result, there really isn't anything reliable that discusses the machine's operations after 2015. If you are able to find something more, please let me know, but my search hasn't turned up much else. And yes, you are correct in that there are no free licensed images that I can find.
The article may be shorter than most but that does not disqualify it from GA, in fact, it would be far from the shortest article to go through GA. I see your tags and will clean them up in a bit. Thanks, Etrius ( Us) 17:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Etriusus Fair point. We do what we can. I suspect that there is truly not much out there by way of sources, so it may be tricky to adequately explain the way it works. I have my doubts that crowd pressure is the correct technical term for what I interpret as the force applied by the cutting edge of the auger, and which would be determined by maximum torque and cutter radius, assuming a single cutting edge, or diameter for a balanced cutter. This is civil engineering equipment, which is a bit out of my field. Do you have any idea whether the spoil is cleared by the auger flutes or do they retract the cutter head and clear with grabs or something else? The photo in the reference ENR Southwest might qualify for fair use. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 2 is not Attewell and Hurrell, it is a short article "Mobile 100ton drilling rig for very large diameters" on the same page 20 of Ground Engineering, November 1985, after Attewell and Hurrell, fortunately also archived. There is quite a bit of technical specification information there, some of which may be useful for expanding the article. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbsouthwood Please take a look when you can, I did my best to clarify without breaking WP:OR. I managed to find an image on commons that looks similar in design, I also reached out to a few Flickr accounts in that hope they will get back to me with image permission.
Looks like you beat me to the punch, I did exact that, used FN 2.
The exact mechanism is difficult to describe since I've seen video of Big Stan but few sources provide details. I could add info about the drill bucket but wikipedia doesn't seem to have a page on that, and I'm already riding the line of being too WP:TECHNICAL. On its wider settings, it does appear to have a set of grabbers in video. Etrius ( Us) Etrius ( Us) 19:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Etriusus, I have specified the cutting rate as a maximum since it necessarily varies depending on the diameter of the bit in use, and we know that is a variable. I am also fairly sure that the 39 rpm is a maximum, as it seems unlikely that the tip speed will ever be 61 feet per second while cutting dirt on only 600 horsepower. (I have not done the power/torque calculations, this is a gut feel estimate). Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 02:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see there is a 6 speed transmission, which confirms 39rpm is likely to be a maximum used with smaller diameter augers.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 03:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One reference (ENR) states 75000 lb "crowd pressure" which has not been defined in this context, and another (Ground Engineering) states "downthrust" of 70000lb, which is probably clear enough to not require further explanation. Are these supposed to be the same thing? The only definitions of crowd pressure I have found refer to the force exerted by an actual crowd (of people). · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 03:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some mention of drill buckets and their capacity would be useful, even if as a redlink. Some information on drill buckets could be either a standalone or a redirect to section in drilling rig. (I have made a redirect to section with a brief description). · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You might consider swapping the order of the two paragraphs in the Design section. The opening sentence of the second paragraph would do well as a lead for the section. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbsouthwood It is my understanding that 'crowd pressure' and 'downward force' are being used interchangeably. I dug around on a few mechanic forums to see if I could find a better explanation of the term and it appears that 'crowd pressure' is an overall measure of downward force that is most often, but not exclusively, used for the downward force of a crowd. It's use in the article is a bit dated but technically correct. I believe it would be most prudent to use 'downward force' for simplicity's sake but leave crowd pressure in parenthesis since that it what is more commonly cited.
Thank you for adding the bucket dimensions and other clarifications. I went ahead and flipped the paragraphs and I agree that it looks much better. Etrius ( Us) 20:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Etriusus, I agree about he intended use of the terms downward force and crowd pressure, but downward force is clear and obvious in meaning to most people, while crowd pressure is probably not an official technical term in this context, is vague and poorly defined, ambiguous, and likely to be misunderstood or cause confusion to the majority of readers. It may be common jargon in the industry, but that does not come up in my research. Also, my understanding of crowd pressure in the context of masses of people, is that it is the linear distribution of outward (horizontal) force exerted by a crowd on a barrier, which would require it to be expressed in units of force per length. If so, that would mean that the journalist misused it in the referenced article. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Big Stan (drill rig)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 15:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'll be reviewing this. I anticipate we will have this finished by the end of the weekend. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

I apologize for slipping past my self-imposed deadline; stuff came up in my off-wiki life and I didn't have time to work on the review at all over the weekend. I will start working on it now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    No remaining concerns. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    No remaining concerns. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    References format is acceptable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    References appear reliable and the article has sufficient citations to meet the GA criteria. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    I cannot find any instances of original research. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    I spot-checked references 2 and 5 and compared them to the article, and found no issues. I also performed an Earwig check, which found nothing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    I see no further issues with scope. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    I do not see any issues here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    Having read the article, I see no issues with neutrality. The article maintains a neutral, encyclopedic tone throughout. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    Article history shows steady improvement, no issues here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    We have one image, licensed appropriately. This may be a situation where a fair-use image would be desirable, if we cannot find any freely-licensed photos of Big Stan. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Caption and image are fine. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    On hold. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All comments addressed, passing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments

  • Check for missing unit conversions, I see tons used without a metric conversion.
 Done
  • Drill rig should be linked the first time it's mentioned in the body, and not in the last section.
It already is in the first sentence. Perhaps more clarification is needed. Etrius ( Us) 19:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link First National Bank Tower in the body.
 Done
  • There's a lot of numbers being thrown at the reader in the last paragraph. Have you thought about using a table to convey that information?

 Done

  • The lead is a bit short, consider expanding a bit.
 Done
  • You have "Big Stan" in quotation marks in one instance, and not with quotations everywhere else. Be consistent.
 Done
  • Tractor-trailer is linked twice in the same sentence.
 Done
  • Big Stan can uniquely be split into two pieces for transport that are designed to be transported independently. Consider rewording as "Big Stan can uniquely be split into two pieces which can be transported independently."
 Done
 Not done, I'd like to avoid MOS:SANDWICH and I don't think a gallery of previously worked on projects would really add much. I was actually in contact with someone who has pics of the drill rig, but we're still figuring out. I have the images but the owner ghosted me before releasing the copyright. :(  Done Etrius ( Us) 19:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's about all I've got. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsandotherthings Hopefully that's everything. There, unfortunately, isn't a thriving drill rig enthusiast group on Wikipedia, so I fashioned the table similar to Byford Dolphin, an oil rig, hopefully it'll work. Everything I didn't add to the table should already be in the infobox. I was worried about putting too many images together but it solved itself. Etrius ( Us) 20:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the changes. I really like the table, it's a much clearer way to present the information. I'm happy to pass the article now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey TAOT!! Thanks for taking this up. It's alright if your review is delayed, IRL comes first. Just let me know what improvements can be made, whenever you're able to. For whatever reason I didn't get a talk page notification, which is probably due to ChristieBot currently undergoing open heart surgery. I'll ping @Mike Christie:, so it's on their radar. Just ping me when you're finished, I'll keep the tab open as well just to make sure. Cheers, Etrius ( Us) 20:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping -- I had a look and I think I found and fixed the problem. I'll keep an eye on the "On review" statuses and make sure a talk page notice goes out for the next couple. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Etriusus: Placing this on hold, just a few comments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Etriusus (talk). Self-nominated at 01:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Etriusus: Good article but I can't seem to verify the hook with the citation you gave. Could you elaborate. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The cited link [1] does say in the "Facts" section, "From May to June 1999 the caissons were drilled by "Big Stan," the world's largest drilling rig, which was brought in from Denver." However, I would prefer to be able to cite a more reliable source about this. Emporis.com is a website focused on skyscrapers, not on drill rigs. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Onegreatjoke:, following from Metropolitan90's comment, I've modified the hook to be in line with a different source. The phrasing of 'estimated to be' is intentionally ambiguous since Emporis is the most reliable source that makes this claim and the record is more than likely broken at this point. It would be WP:OR to go that far, even if I can see the specs on newer Chinese models are larger. Drill Rig enthusiasm isn't vogue unfortunately
While I'd be willing to stake that Emporis is a reliable source, including matters of skyscraper construction, I'll replace it for simplicity's sake. Etrius ( Us) 01:10, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Etriusus: Sorry for bothering you but the new source you provided also doesn't seem to make the claim that the hook states. So I need a new source. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onegreatjoke: The source in question states billed by its owner as the biggest portable drilling rig in the United States. For whatever reason I didn't get the ping, I'll just leave the tab open. Etrius ( Us) 22:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are portable and vehicle mounted the same thing? Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onegreatjoke: The terms are synonymous for the most part, all vehicle mounted rigs are, by definition, portable drilling rigs. Mobile drilling rig is another synonym. We could nitpick, but functionally, the terms are used synonymous. Our page Drilling rig is woefully inadequate at explaining this, and is a future project of mine. If this is a particularly strong point, there is a source I can use that gives the specifics of the vehicle its mounted to, implicitly citing it, but it's a very dense read. Etrius ( Us) 00:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I'll just approve then. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Stan_(drill_rig)&oldid=1206296267"