Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Soda can stove
Soda can stove[edit]
Spare and sweet. Colorful 3-D rendering leaves nothing to the imagination. Top link in the references shows you exactly how to make one. +sj+ 00:09, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Minor objction. How did it came to be called "Pepsi can stove"? Why wasn't it called simply "soda can stove"?Revth 02:28, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)- The requested article link was "Pepsi can stove", i didn't think about a better name but maybe should have. FWIW Google shows 1130 hits for "Pepsi can stove" (with quotes) and 594 for "soda can stove". Duk 03:00, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Yup, I checked myself and "Pepsi can stove" is the popular name and couldn't find out why that name stuck. It's most likely that no one knows.
- I believe it is credited as a Pepsi can stove because cans from Pepsi products tend to work best. --Mrath 00:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Support. Revth 15:22, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support Would still like to see some more depth in some areas, but I am not sure the information is out there to find. Martyman 21:46, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Objection1) There is no mention of the commercially available stoves that are almost identical in design such as the Trangia. 2) Was the Pepsi stove a copy of the commercial designs, and when was it invented/adapted. Martyman 03:07, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC) Object. Good article, but far too short to be featured. Ambi 10:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)- Disagree with the objection (i) No subject is unfit for featured status. If the article's short because there's not much of interest to be said, then so bit it. It can still be a good short article. (ii) Reason is not in itself actionable. jguk 13:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I didn't say the subject was unfit for featured status. It is. The article, however, is just simply not detailed enough to be a featured article. If this were accepted as present, it would be by far the shortest featured article we have. With that in mind, I believe it's an entirely fair objection, and one that should be actionable. Ambi 13:53, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Say what it's missing. That's actionable. Just saying it's short, isn't.jguk 13:57, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I don't know. Cultural references? Other designs? Potential uses? Surely more can be said than simply how to make one and how to then use it. I'm not an expert on the topic. But if this were to be featured, it would set a really terrible precedent, because up until now, nothing this short has been featured - and any old ones that were this short have since been weeded out. Ambi 14:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- As a further example, the history section is terrible, and Securiger gives further examples of ways this could be expanded below. As there are ways of expanding this, there is then no excuse for having such a short article. Ambi 11:22, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- The article has improved significantly, and though it's still a little on the short side, I think that's quite forgivable, considering the topic. Changing to support. Ambi 07:25, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- As a further example, the history section is terrible, and Securiger gives further examples of ways this could be expanded below. As there are ways of expanding this, there is then no excuse for having such a short article. Ambi 11:22, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I don't know. Cultural references? Other designs? Potential uses? Surely more can be said than simply how to make one and how to then use it. I'm not an expert on the topic. But if this were to be featured, it would set a really terrible precedent, because up until now, nothing this short has been featured - and any old ones that were this short have since been weeded out. Ambi 14:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Say what it's missing. That's actionable. Just saying it's short, isn't.jguk 13:57, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I didn't say the subject was unfit for featured status. It is. The article, however, is just simply not detailed enough to be a featured article. If this were accepted as present, it would be by far the shortest featured article we have. With that in mind, I believe it's an entirely fair objection, and one that should be actionable. Ambi 13:53, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Disagree with the objection (i) No subject is unfit for featured status. If the article's short because there's not much of interest to be said, then so bit it. It can still be a good short article. (ii) Reason is not in itself actionable. jguk 13:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support Nice concise well-written article. jguk 13:57, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Fascinating, well written article frittered away a whole afternoon for me! - although it is much imporved by the new history section. BTW, some of the external links indicate that there are numerous other designs around. Ideally the article would mention the number of designs, compare top models, and perhaps trace when it became popular for hikers to experiment with them. But that's a heck of a lot of work and I wouldn't withhold my vote waiting for it. Securiger 05:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support Wow.--Josiah 06:00, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Object, incomplete. Even the links there provide a fair amount of material that is not covered in the article.
Specifically (but not limited to) burn time of fuel, ie how much less efficient is it? More details on the construction. I didn't really get an idea of how it worked until I read the external links. Variations on the construction. Is JB weld the only option for building the stove? One of the links refers to foil tape.I could go on, but I only looked at a couple of the external links and found all this. - Taxman 14:31, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)- Recent edits have improved the completeness though I see a bit more that needs to be covered. Also, after the additions the organization of material is a bit awkward. Especially the construction section. Aluminum should not be used, but is the best choice? More could be said about both of those and about the windscreen, why needed, etc. Also some clarification is needed on the variations. What are the "internal" lines in the drawings there for? I think it would be clearer without them, I have no idea what they are trying to show. Is the side burner version more efficient since it blocks the fuel vapor from coming out anywhere but the burner holes? - No problem on that one if there is no data to tell either way, but in general the info on each variation could be epanded. Especially interesting is the more powerful sealed version. - Taxman 01:53, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Objections: The history section is too short to be a section, we should expand it. There are no references. The images could use better captions. The variations section should should be expanded and turned into flowing prose. ✏ Sverdrup 23:07, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- One very, very small objection: I think this should come with some sort of safety warning/disclaimer. -Litefantastic 21:31, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- good idea, is there a tag for this? I couldn't find one. If not, how is one made?Duk 21:32, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The following comes close: CAUTION: USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK! I'll paste it onto the article, thus resolving my own objection. -Litefantastic 12:05, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- An explicit link to Wikipedia:Disclaimer or Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer too? My only concern would be, does this impliedly mean that unarticles without an express disclaimer are somehow "safer". -- ALoan (Talk) 12:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- In the sense that the person unertaking actions based on stuff he-she learned from reading things here is totally resposible for whatever happens. All things considered, we really ought to pay more attention to safety. -Litefantastic 18:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I removed the warning first without seeing this obection. Yet after reading this here, I still believe it should be removed -- the purpose of having all articles link to the general disclaimer is so that individual articles do not need them -- that's why we took them all out months ago. →Raul654 20:08, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
- As you see fit. -Litefantastic 15:38, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I removed the warning first without seeing this obection. Yet after reading this here, I still believe it should be removed -- the purpose of having all articles link to the general disclaimer is so that individual articles do not need them -- that's why we took them all out months ago. →Raul654 20:08, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
- In the sense that the person unertaking actions based on stuff he-she learned from reading things here is totally resposible for whatever happens. All things considered, we really ought to pay more attention to safety. -Litefantastic 18:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- An explicit link to Wikipedia:Disclaimer or Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer too? My only concern would be, does this impliedly mean that unarticles without an express disclaimer are somehow "safer". -- ALoan (Talk) 12:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The following comes close: CAUTION: USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK! I'll paste it onto the article, thus resolving my own objection. -Litefantastic 12:05, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)