Talk:Spiral watertube boiler/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jc3s5h (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC) The article concentrates on a description and identification of manufacturers. The illustrations are useful, but at the size that can easily be displayed on a computer screen, are too "busy" to make clear the operation of the boiler.

Also, there is little indication of the performance of the boiler. For example, what was the power output of the largest examples. Were they superseded by superior types? If so, what aspect of their performance lead to the falling out of favor?

Thanks for your review.

This is intended as one of a large series on boiler types (take a look at the category and the list of boiler types, by manufacturer. I'd written this on the assumption that the interested reader would be familiar with the basic operation of a water-tube boiler (Unfortunately water-tube boiler is quite a poor article). It would certainly be possible to expand the operation of the boiler, but my concern is that is likely to end up somewhat duplicated across all the water-tube articles. Do I need to write for the "lay reader" here, even at risk of duplication, rather than assuming they'll have already read a primer?

For illustrations, I'll probably try and draw an Illingworth. In some ways it's the clearest, and as I have little else on it, I should get drawing.

I've a load more material to add for the Lune Valley in steamboats, probably the best known of this group. The larger Climax is more difficult - it fell from favour between the wars, but it's always harder to find good sources describing the decline of a technology, rather than its more interesting ascent. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The exact approach is up to you. It would certainly be OK to clean up or write articles that introduce a class of boilers to lay readers, and refer to it (or them) in each article. I do think that to be a good article, the article must go beyond mere description and place the boiler in perspective amongst other boilers. For example, was it cheaper but less efficient than its contemporaries? Or maybe it was less efficient but easier to ship broken-down and assemble on site. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)