Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gas tungsten arc welding

Gas tungsten arc welding

My third self-nominated welding FAC. I put it on peer review for several days with no comments, but I got feedback from two of Wikipedia's leading welding gurus, User:Triddle and User:TTLightningRod. I've tried to incorporate their suggestions while keeping the article well referenced with plenty of inline citations. And thanks to User:Duk for the great schematic. So, what do you think? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 05:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Support I saw this article earlier, and it has really improved considerably. Brings alive the memories of a dreadful compulsary undergrad course :) Sorry for not commenting on the peer review page. I guess it can do with a few more pictures, just for the visual impact. Apart from that, it looks comprehensive (there's nothing I know which is not in the article, not that I know much.) Probably you can make a mention of industries where it is most likely to be used: aerospace/automotive, or whatever. Good article overall deeptrivia (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns are addressed! deeptrivia (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a section on applications, under "Operation". As for the images, I've got an idea for another diagram, but I've done a fair amount of searching for free images, and haven't found much. I'll look around some more though. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 14:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added a diagram describing the setup of equipment, and User:TTLightningRod provided an image of a GTAW torch. Do they meet your expectations, or did you have something else in mind? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks good, but... the horrible self-reference in the bottom template needs to go. There's no reason to mention the existence of a WikiProject directly in the article. —Kirill Lokshin 07:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the word "wikiproject". Was that the only issue? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 14:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; as I said, it's a good article otherwise. Support from me, in that case. —Kirill Lokshin 16:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think Spangineer's work on this article is extremely good. Triddle 20:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Ridiculously thorough and precise, high informational content, well written prose. Spangineer deserves major kudos! I did a small amount of copyediting, hope that's OK :) - JustinWick 00:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" :) The Catfish 05:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great use of inline citations. More power to the welding! :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm supporting this most of all because it is a very comprehensive article for a quite obscure and specialised article. This makes the article even worthier of FA status. Congratulations! Ronline ✉ 07:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good. Everyking 07:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- but I would like to see the svg version of Image:GTAW.png on the page rather than the png version. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I don't have access to any image editing software capable of converting the image to svg. If someone else would like to do it, that'd be great; otherwise I'll do it in a couple weeks. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 14:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]