Jump to content

Talk:Gravity bong/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

I hope this shit doesn't get deleted.

Why delete this article? I find it useful and informative, if in need of a little sprucing up. Its not spam or unhelpful, I really do hope that request for deletion gets removed ASAP! For shame.

These are REAL!

This article is not very informant, and cites information that is irrelevant to the subject matter. i.e: popular in australia and new zeland. And if i remember correctly, the last time i searched this page, there was a lot more information about the gravity bong, and a picture too. People totally use these and there is another vairant where a valve is used so you can shoot the smoke into your lungs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.26.237 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 26 April 2009

Title

I feel like the title should definitely be "Gravity Bong"- I've never heard the term bucket bong before (where is this term used?). From what I can tell from UrbanDictionary (not the best source, I know) Gravity Bong seems to be a more popular term, based on the number of entries and the number of ratings for each entry. Opinions?--Kickflipthecat (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Please know that in wikipedia Urban dictionary is not an admissible refernce. Please read wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:CITE and "reliable sources", if you want to contribute. Sorry, I had to remove your additions to this page. Personal knowledge of a wikipedian is not counted as a reliable source of information. - Altenmann >t 23:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
None of those contributions are from Urbandictionary, I'm just saying I think that Gravity Bong is a better title than Bucket Bong. In my experience it's a more recognizable term, but that may or may not be true worldwide, which is why I wanna have a discussion on the matter. Also, I don't understand why you had to delete everything, why can't you just say that it doesn't cite it's sources? I understand the whole verifiability vs truth thing, but I feel like if it's not false information we're better off with the information and a mention that it's not cited. Gravity bongs really aren't covered in scientific journals, you see, and it may be a bit difficult to find reputable sources.--Kickflipthecat (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Please understand that this is how wikipedia works: no published reliable sources - no text in wikipedia. Without refs there is no way to distinguish a trustworthy wikipedian from a sly joker or original inventor. As for "aren't covered in scientific journals", I guess it speaks more of laziness of wikipedians than of actual lack of coverage. For example, the current miserable article mentions a book with a whole chapter about bucket bongs. Nobody cared to read it and report. I guess, it is much more fun to smoke some pot and then tell a story. :-) - Altenmann >t 15:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
There are pretty much no sources that I can find on this. It indeed seems to be more commonly called a gravity bong. I suggest the article be renamed this. On the page it should also be mentioned that it is called a 'bucket bong' or 'buckie'. On a side note, I can deliver a picture of one if needed. Danyewl (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
In Liverpool, UK, we simply call it a bucket. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.155.232 (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I've never heard a gravity bong called a "bucket bong". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.100.243 (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Picture text

There has been a couple of instances of the picture text being changed to 'bucket bongs are most common in New Zealand'. I have changed it back from that as that sentence seems to be original research and ambiguous. Are they more common in New Zealand than any other type of bong, or are buckets more common in NZ than anywhere else in the world? Either way it's original research or needs a reference. Arnie Side (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove my remarks from the talk pages. You may disagree with what I am saying but please have the decency to allow me to say it. Arnie Side (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Vice Versa so don't have a cry about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.82.158.124 (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

User:118.82.158.124, it would behove you to remain WP:CIVIL in your comments. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Warranting of {{Cleanup-tense}} and {{Howto}}

I do not believe that this article should warrant {{Cleanup-tense}} and {{Howto}}. There is nothing wrong with the tense's grammar (any issues will most likely be fixed for GAN), so it shouldn't need a {{Cleanup-tense}} template. As for {{Howto}}, yes, the article does explain what is needed for making it, but such facts are needed to describe the bong and what it does. It is presented facts anyways, and definitly not a how-to article that will "train" readers. If any user finds/feels that the templates should be warranted in the article, please either fix it, or start a discussion here. Thanks, CrowzRSA 20:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC).

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bucket bong/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Philcha (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll mark Green tickY comments when I think they're resolved, highlight Red XN any that are unresolved when most others are done, and strike out any of comments that I later decide are mistaken. I'll sign each of my comments, so we can see who said what - please do the same.

I'll mark the review {{inuse}} when I'm working on it, as edit conflicts are frustrating. If you think I've forgotten to remove {{inuse}}, please leave a message at my Talk page. Please free to use {{inuse}} with your own signature when you're working.

I'll read the article through first, then give comments. --Philcha (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

General comments

Coverage

  • "Weed" is dried leaves and stems, most usually rolled in a cigarette paper - the result is often called a joint. A spliff is a very fat joint (see pic at joint) - "spliff" may be a UK term. My "cake" is hashish, a dried paste. AFAIK bongs (water pipes) and their derivatives use the hashish form, as "weed" would not fit into the small bowl at the top of water pipe or bucket bong. Hash brownies are cakes in which the ingredients include pulverised hashish. --Philcha (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • What's a "blunt", and what do you mean by "vaporizers"? You've got me there :-) --Philcha (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • You can't avoid the legal aspect. I doubt that there's a legal problem with using any types of water pipe, etc. with tobacco. But, in your words, "The bong is mainly used for smoking cannabis." In that case, you can't avoid the legal aspect. AFAIK the criminalisation of cannabis has a murky history. The trick is say just enough to make the reader aware, without going into depth - e.g. (subject to sources) studies by the US Army in the early 1930s and by Fiorello LaGuardia in (?)1935 said cannabis had advantages over alcoholic beverages, but the US govt criminalized cannabis very shortly after. I admit I'm tempted to research the history and, if I could find some A-grade sources, do an article in it for fun - it would raise eyebrows but, if there are A-grade sources, ... >-)
  • 2 things:
    • You use the phrase "head shops" without explanation. The solutions I can see without too much thought are: paraphrase, if not too clumsy; add a section "Notes" above "References" for brief explanation notes. The 3 elements of Notes are (see example at Maevia inclemens): {{reflist|group="Note"}} right under the section heading; a sort of bullet list with {{note|a}} ... ... ...{{note|b}} ... ... ..., etc.; and the links in the main text, [a], [b] (rather like the numbers in references. --Philcha (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Green tickY I'll look for sources for the murky origins of the criminalisation of cannabis, as the official line is very would be very POV if the authors had to use WP's rules. --Philcha (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • In the first good source from Google Books, I found too much found that the history is too long and complex to be easily summarised in Bucket bong. It's now on my to-do list (long, no promises). So we have to go with the "official" position at present. --Philcha (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Do we have a misunderstanding here? I meant that the article needs to explain why anyone would want to make and use a bucket bong, and bong is a good start, although you'd have add content specific to the advantages and limitations of a bucket bong. --Philcha (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • It is mentioned that a gravity bong "does not use water to filter the cannabis," which to a lot of people is a disadvantage. I'm not sure if an entire section can be made for that subject.
  • "gravity bong"? If I understand it, this may be the genus to which the bucket bong and waterfall bong belong, as both let the water out before inhaling the smoke. More taxonomy? --Philcha (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ways of inhaling smokable substances:

  • Substance burnt in paper tube:
    • Joint
    • Blunt
    • Spliff
  • Substance burnt in bowl:
    • Bowl only
    • Inhaling through water:
      • Bong (water pipe)
    • Using water pressure to
      draw smoke into bottle:
      • Bucket bong
      • Waterfall bong
  • Ancestry, "cousins", etc. of the bucket bong? The waterfall bong looks like a sub-species of bucket bong, and integrates the bucket and the bong. I've improved to GA several zoology and paleontology articles, and I'd be tempted to add here a section "Taxonomy", which IIRC would be correct and also would be a little joke. --Philcha (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Ideally we need a source or 2 for the origin of the bucket bong and the waterfall bong (who and when), and hopefully the inspiration for the apparatus. If that leads back to the waterpipe, we have a taxonomy - I know the concept well, see User:Philcha#Improved_and_got_passed_as_GA in paleontology and zoology. If you can supply the sources, I can make suggestions on the taxonomy aspects - and it would be fun using "taxonomy" correctly but in an unconventional context. --Philcha (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think any information on taxonomy is available, if I am understanding it by its actual definition, something's category in a classification thing? CrowzRSA 21:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I think a small section on the subject would be very interesting actually, but I think a larger section should be made in the Bong article as well. I have no idea where I could such information though, it seems like very little research has actually been done on the gravity bong. And I also thought that idea that bucket bongs and waterfall bongs may be in the gravity bong category may be the case on this. CrowzRSA 15:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Structure

I think the current structure is confusing. For example, "Description" describes the bucket / gravity bong, and 2 sections later "Waterfall bong" is very similar and partly duplicates some content. Assuming I've understand this (please correct me if needed), how about something like: --Philcha (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Section "Description" or "Operation"
    • Introductory para: it's a means of smoking cannabis, tobacco, etc.; bucket bong and waterfall bong both methods of filling smoke into a large bottle and then inhaling. (with citations)
    • Sub-section "Bucket bong"
      • Also called "gravity bong"
      • Major components: large bucket; large plastic bottle with bottom cut off; head consisting of wire bowl for smoking, short plastic tube, and screw fitting that fixes the bowl and pipe into the top of the bottle. (note that this only describes the sub-assemblies, not the details of to how to make them)
      • The user fills the bucket and then pushes the bottle into the water, almost down to the top of the bottle.
      • The user screws the bowl and small pipe into the bottle, fills the bowl and lights the substance, and lifts the bottle so it's bottom is very near to surface of the water. This fills the bottle with the smoke.
      • Unscrews the bowl and small pipe, and and enjoy.
    • Sub-section "Waterfall bong" (NB do as description, not manual)
      • No bucket. Small hole in the wall of the bottle, near the bottom. Stopper ready to fix into the small hole near the bottom.
      • Fix the stopper. Fill the bottle with water. Screw the bowl and small pipe into the bottle, fill the bowl and light the substance. Temporally withdraw the stopper, so that the water drains out and the bottle is filled with smoke.
      • Fix the stopper, unscrew the bowl and small pipe, and enjoy.
      • (then check for duplication).
  • Section "Comparison to other herbal consumption methods" - joints, blunts, spliffs, water pipes, ? vaporizers if these are a separate method rather than an add-on.
  • Section "Reception" - the comments from reviewers.
  • Section "Legal status" - is OK and in right place.
  • (adjust position of diagrams)
  • I think there should be a "Typical users" subsection in "Comparison to other herbal consumption methods" section. And I also think that "Reception" may pose better as a sub-section to "Description". CrowzRSA 16:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Description

  • I've made "Brian Griffin noted the aesthetic downside of a gravity bong ..." a separate para as it's about reviews rather operation. In articles about books, TV shows, computer games, etc. this content would be in a section "Reviews" or "Reception", but we can resolve that later. --Philcha (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Green tickY Please remove 'the one 3/8" or 1/4" brass cut nozzle', see Wikipedia:NOTMANUAL#NOTMANUAL. --Philcha (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Red XN The rest of the 1st para and the 2nd part of also looks too like a manual, but I think it's needed. The trick is to paraphrase it so it looks more like anatomy than construction. More below. --Philcha (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but the first sentence gives the game away, its instructions - e.g. "... is made using ..."and "must be cut off, and the bottle's cap will have a small hole in the center". You need roughly something like "... consists of sub-assembly A, sub-assembly B, ... Sub-assembly A consists of ...", etc. If you get a mental block, ask a friend. In fact my comment " It looks to me that the main body (excluding bucket) is a fairly large and tall plastic bottle, such as a family-sized soft drinks bottle, and with the bottom cut off. There's a detachable component which consists of: a small bowl which is for burning the substance and which may made of wire gauze; a short tube that will transit the smoke into the bottle; and an air-tight fixing that temporarily connects the bowl and tube to the bottle" could be a good start. It may help if you think of how it looks as you get an already-made one out of a cupboard or box, and then how it looks after you've set it up. --Philcha (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Red XN I found the rest of the 1st and 2nd para confusing, while to me the 3-stage diagram is excellent. It looks to me that the main body (excluding bucket) is a fairly large and tall plastic bottle, such as a family-sized soft drinks bottle, and with the bottom cut off. There's a detachable component which consists of: a small bowl which is for burning the substance and which may made of wire gauze; a short tube that will transit the smoke into the bottle; and an air-tight fixing that temporarily connects the bowl and tube to the bottle. --Philcha (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The 2 pics on the left also confused me, as they imply that the bottle itself can be in 2 parts. But as far as I can see, the lid must stay fixed to the rest of the bottle, otherwise the vapour escapes. But the pics do not show the bowl assembly is removed in order for the use to inhale. --Philcha (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The article says, While holding the bottle in place, the lid is removed and the bottle will be pushed down while the one smoking it is breathing the smoke in while the one's mouth is on the bottle's opening.[1][2]. CrowzRSA 16:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • You mean that some times the user inhales via the small aperture in the diagram at the right, and sometimes by removing the whole lid? --Philcha (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Green tickY Please use "litre" or "liter" (depending your dialect) rather than "L". Another of WP's idiosyncrasies - and, as you can see, applies only to articles :-) --Philcha (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • How many people are needed to operate this contraption? And how do they avoid getting wet? How to stop the bottle from toppling or being lifted too far, so that the vaoupr espaces? --Philcha (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I already know the answers to these—One person, since they just need to lift it while holding a lighter. The only thing that gets wet (usually) are your lips. You have to physically stop the bong from coming out of the water, since I use water, you can't really tell when it's about to come out of the water, so I've lifted it out of the water before and it sucks, cause smoke gets everywhere—but I don't know where I can get a reference to verify such information. CrowzRSA 14:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Red XN At Google (ordinary) for "bucket bong" hold the first entry is p. 38 of Build This Bong: Instructions and Diagrams for 40 Bongs, Pipes, and Hookahs, a book by Randy Stratton. When I linked to the page about the book, Google wouldn't show that page. But back to the search page, there's short extract which can be adapted to show how fiddly using a bucket can be, and can imply the risk of spilling and letting the vapour out. --Philcha (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Page 38 says "Materials and Supplies: One large plastic bottle such as a 2-liter beverage bottle, one 3/8" or 1/4" F X 1/8" M brass cut nozzle, Screen (an aerator screen cut to fit the bowl, or an appropriately sized screen purchased from a smoke shop), and one large bucket or other container filled with water. Tools: X-Acto knife, or similar sharp, pointy instrument, and a drill and 3/8" drill bit (optional). Directions: Cut off the bottom of the bottle with the knife, drill or cut a 3/8" hole in the beverage bottle cap, and thread the cut nozzle into the hold on the outside of the cap, and screw the cap onto the bottle. Insert the screen into the bowl. Note: To use, immerse the bottle up to its neck in water. Be sure to load the bowl after the bottle has been immersed. Then, while lighting the bowl, slowly lift the bottle until the bottom is just below the surface of the water. Hold the bong in place while removing the cap. Push the bong down to release the smoke through the beverage bottle opening." That book and page has already been cited in this article, And it pretty much already summarizes this with The bottle is then immersed to its neck in water, and the substance should be inserted directly after the bottle has been immersed. While lighting the bowl with (preferably) a lighter or match, gradually lift the bottle until nearly out of water or when the substance discontinues burning. While holding the bottle in place, the lid is removed and the bottle will be pushed down while the one smoking it is breathing the smoke in while the one's mouth is on the bottle's opening. CrowzRSA 21:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Google Books and Google Scholar is often more useful Google (ordinary), as the latter other is cluttered with sales pages or does not comply with WP:V (1st 2 sections).
    • If you can't the term you want, try synonyms - Google for "your word(s) synonym" to get get dictionary entries. If that doesn't, you could try "your word(s) antonym". --Philcha (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Waterfall bong

  • I have re-written the section, and I think it looks a lot better now. CrowzRSA 18:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Think of the sub-assemblies I suggested in "Bucket bong". I think the waterfall bong should be simpler; most of the description is as like that in "Bucket bong"; the difference is that there's no bucket, and instead the bottle has a small hole near the bottom of its cylinder, with a stopper that fits snugly into the hole. --Philcha (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I added that a large bucket or container is needed, that the cut nozzle was a bowl, and I added A mid-sized hole that is cut smooth to prevent leakage is located near the bottom of the bottle to water bong. I'm pretty sure that's all of the sub-assemblies: Bucket, bottle, bowl, screen, CrowzRSA 17:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Comparison to other herbal consumption methods

  • Green tickY The weights are confusing. My impression is that joints and blunts use "weed" / "grass", while you say the various "pipes" can use "weed" / "grass" or hashish, and my impression is that hashish contains more THC per gram. So how to reconcile the various quantities? --Philcha (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Unless using weed or hashish for actual medical use and not as a recreational psychedelic, the majority of smokers use weed for recreational uses, they'll pack the same sized bowl with hash as they would weed. CrowzRSA 14:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

(sections)

I'll check with User:Dispenser/Checklinks and the DAB checker when the content is stable.

Images

Lead

I review the lead last, to check that all of it is based on the main text.

CrowzRSA, there's still a lot to do - see the comments above, and then we need to look at the phrasing. This is taking too long. --Philcha (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Result of review

This review is going nowhere. I know you're relatively new to Wikipedia, and hoped to get you off to a good start. Unfortunately it seems that you need more experience in WP before you nominate or review articles for GA. Perhaps it would useful for you collaborate on other articles, and study what other edditors do there, and especially their responses to your contributions, both at the articles' Talk pages and in changes made in the article (the articles' History tab can be useful to highlight recent changes).

Areas where further improvement is needed on Bucket bong include:

  • The sections describing "Bucket bong" and "Waterfall bong" still contain manual-like passages. See the comment above where I almost re-wrote a paragraph, and my suggestion "... think of how it looks as you get an already-made one out of a cupboard or box ..."
  • It still doesn't clarify the use or necessity for a lid.
  • Your writing is still poor - e.g. sometimes verbose, sometimes unclear, too much use of passive voice when e.g. "The use may ..." is often clear and more vivid.
  • Need some restructuring, e.g. "reception" (external reviewers comments) separated from description sections.

So I regretfully conclude that, at present, Bucket bong does no meet the GA criteria, and must award a Fail. I hope you are successful in 6 to 12 months. --Philcha (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If you disagree with my conclusions, you may request a reassessment of the review and its result. --Philcha (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Glass jar?!

Who makes a grav bong out of glass jars? The inner chamber needs to have holes in both the top and the bottom, I haven't seen an easy way to do that with glass jars. Most look like the one in the photo -- a plastic bottle inside of a bucket. 67.175.146.68 (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request. In addition to the rationale given below, gravity bong appears to be significantly more common in English language reliable sources.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Bucket bong → Gravity bong – The page "Bucket bong" should be renamed "Gravity bong" because the page contains descriptions of both the bucket bong and the waterfall bong. These bongs are both in the gravity bong category. It is odd to name a page "Bucket bong" when the page clearly focuses on gravity bongs (both bucket and waterfall bong). CrowzRSA 21:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Gravity bong/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll take up this review - I'll leave some initial comments within 24 hours. I mainly focus on copy editing issues but judging the size of this article the review shouldn't take that long. Thanks! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    It is well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Sorry for coming to the review late as I've had a busy weekend! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Initial comments

Lead

  • "A gravity bong is a method of consuming cannabis, tobacco, or other smokeable substances" - perhaps tobacco should be linked for convenience? And also by smokeable is this mainly referring to herbal or something else?
  •  Fixed
  • Other than that, the lead complies per WP:LEAD as the other paragraph describes how a bong works and is operated.

Bucket bong

When I was reading through this I was worried that this whole section is too informal - it's written like a direct instruction on how to make a bong! These are the prose problems listed below. If these are addressed to, this section would meet the GA criteria.

  • "A gravity bong also called a bucket bong, or just a "bucket", uses a large plastic bottle" - grammatically this isn't great. How about: A gravity bong, also known as a bucket bong (or just a "bucket") uses a large plastic bottle...
  • Reworded, now says: The construction of a bucket bong (or simply a "bucket") calls for a large plastic bottle.
  • "...uses a large plastic bottle (about 2 liters)" - not essential, but could this measurement be converted using a conversion template?
  •  Done
  • "The string and bottom of the bottle is then sprayed with hairspray or lighter fluid (some sort of flammable material)" - this can be worded better. I'd feel better if hairspray was removed and replaced with something broader such as a common gas lighter or a flame?
  • I removed this entire section, since it is not referenced and I found no online sources which detail such a method.
  • "It is important however that no flammable liquid is above the string." - this doesn't explain why?
  • Removed section (see above)
  • "The bottom is then lit on fire and the bottle is held upside down as just the bottom portion to be removed burns" - I'm sorry, I've re-read this over and over and still don't know what 'to be removed burns' mean!
  • Removed section (see above)
  • "...once it is immersed to its neck in water or some other liquid." - some other fluid?? Please clarify!
  •  Fixed
  • "the bottle will be pushed down while the one smoking it is breathing the smoke in while the one's mouth is on the bottle's opening" - it is good practise to refer to the one using any product as either a user or consumer in this case. This crops up again in the next sentence and later on in this section...
  •  Fixed, but you should double-check to make sure it reads okay.
  • "Brian Griffin noted the aesthetic downside of a gravity bong to be that it looks like "something a janitor whipped up using items from his closet." - should this really be here if he is a fictional character? Also it doesn't explain who Brian Griffin is as it isn't linked (I for one knew who he was but you have to bear in mind that a lot of people reading this article wouldn't!)
  • That's not the dog its an author's pseudonym or just his real name ([1]). Nonetheless, I added "Author" before mentioning his name to avoid confusion.
Whoops that was embarrassing! Thanks for clearing that one up. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "Griffin also wrote that the bong is quite difficult to conceal, saying: "they can be hard to hide if civic-minded parents or parole officers plan on making visits." - should this really be here if this is fictional?
  • See comment above
  • "I. M. Stoned, author of Weed: 420 Things You Didn't Know (or Remember) about Cannabis called the bucket bong "out of the world" and "killer sweet." - I. M. Stoned... is this for real?
  • Hahahah yeah, the about the author section of google books says: "I.M. Stoned is a pseudonym for the writer who claims he never smoked, but perpetually has the munchies and has seen The Big Lebowski and Pineapple Express too many times to be completely innocent." I figure since it was published through Adams Media (part of F+W Media), it gives it some credibility.

Waterfall bong

  • "a brass cut nozzle or something else to act as a bowl and transport smoke to the bottle," - this isn't encyclopaedic! Please clarify
  • Removed
  • The whole section should be re-written in a more formal manner if this were to pass the GAN. So far it looks like a casual instruction list on how to make a waterfall bong.
  • Reworded and removed several things which add to it's "how-to" feel.

Comparison to other herbal comsumption methods

  • "The bong is typically used for smoking cannabis and is generally not recommended for smoking tobacco, or other herbal substances" - I'm confused. The lead opened up with "A gravity bong is a method of consuming cannabis, tobacco, or other smokeable substances" and now this section is advising against that saying it should typically be used to smoke cannabis?
  • I believe it's fixed now because of the lead
  • Although this isn't vital, but could this section be expanded to mention the legal status of both cannabis and bongs in other countries?
  • Good catch,  Doing...
  •  Done

On hold

The article is compact and all references are in check, however I am very concerned about this passing the GAN the way it is now. The whole article is suffering from serious copyediting issues that need to be addressed first before it can even meet the GA criteria. A lot of this article is written very informally and non-encyclopaedic. Personally I would love this article to make GA so tomorrow I will make some minor fixes to the article, but if you can address every issue I have mentioned above and completely re-write a few sections so that the prose flows smoothly into each sentence (see the GA criteria) then this article would have a good hope of passing the GAN. I will put this article on hold for seven days and if those issues are clarified before then I'll happily pass this! Thanks, ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the speedy review Jaguar, and I do apologize for the poor English throughout. I wrote most of this article back in junior year of high school and this is how it looked before [2]. My writing skills have definitely improved since then and after a quick read-through I nominated it at GAN. CrowzRSA 00:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Close - promoted

The article has definitely improved since yesterday and now meets the GA criteria! Well done on addressing every point I had mentioned above, the prose of the article is now much better than it was before. All references were already in check and a couple of sections have improved a lot since this GAN was opened (and its previous GAN). I will be happy to award this its well deserved GA status. Well done on all the extra work! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gravity_bong/Archive_1&oldid=1136775050"