Talk:Ball-on-three-balls test

Ball-on-three-balls test is currently a Chemistry and materials science good article nominee. Nominated by Cattos^💭 at 00:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page. Short description: Biaxial strength testing method

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Materials Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Materials, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Materials on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Physics Low‑importance Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Engineering Low‑importance Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ball-on-three-balls test/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Cathodography (talk · contribs) 00:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Ldm1954 (talk · contribs) 21:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I probably won't be the fastest! Ldm1954 (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in no rush whatsoever, but kindly pinging @Ldm1954: :) Cattos^💭 19:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954: Any updates? Cattos^💭 20:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First pass. Overall it looks OK, but some things needs cleaning.

1. There is some awkward phrasing which needs clarification as not everyone will understand. I have marked many of them
2. In a few places some Wikilinks to other pages on mechanical properties would be useful, maybe subsections.
3. In a few places you are using "weasel" words which are a bit vague. For instance "generally conducted" is weasel, and a reader could wonder about the "non-general" cases.
4. Alumina is going to be mechanically stable, but chemically? At STP little is going to react, it would presumably be a choice if the tests are done at elevated T.
5. Are they really "specialized" furnaces? Surely all you need is something big enough with some connectivity.
6. The page could definitely do with an image or two more. An obvious one is the Airy (or similar) stress, perhaps a few others.
7. I would be inclined to use the AI editor in Word. It may help with the construction of some of the sentences. Of course not ChatGPT!

Ldm1954 (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

N.B., my comment about using Microsoft Word was to have it make minor grammar and sentence construction suggestions. For a GA it think this level of attention is needed. For instance the phrase "were already in use but presented limitations related to stress uniformity" is a bit convoluted, I think something like " were already in use but were limited because of stress uniformity" is simpler. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954: I've responded to your prose suggestions. Cattos^💭 14:48, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]