Talk:Fume hood/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 20:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: JMF (talk · contribs) 16:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article over the next week or so. Feel free to contact me here or at the talk page if you have any queries. Note that I will be creating sections as I go and may subsequently go back and change or delete them. So best not to react until I have completed the first cut.

Copyvio detector

Low (= good) score. Just one alert: the phrase "is a type of local exhaust ventilation device that is designed to limit exposure to hazardous or toxic fumes, vapors or dusts." is used elsewhere. So best to reword or quote formally, please.

Citations

The article is well cited.

Lead

The lead is of satisfactory length, though it looks to me like it could maybe do more to summarise the content. The paragraph on energy waste is valid but takes a third of the lead but nothing like that share of the body. How about remote handling mechanisms?

ranging from the handling of perchloric acid and radionuclides to tall floor-mounted models and models equipped with scrubber systems. is not a natural range. It is either "from relatively low-risk high-school systems to advanced systems in professional laboratories that deal with highly volatile poisonous, corrosive or radioactive substances" or "from about 10 cubic feet (0.28 m³) to to tall floor-mounted models" or "simple exhaust at rooftop to full scrubber management". But are radioactive substances really handled in a fume cupboard? I don't think so.
That sentence was split to give more space to the information being conveyed. I can certainly add more to reflect the article's final state. Laboratory Fume Hoods: A User's Manual and The Sustainable Laboratory Handbook Layout of Technical Building Trades both provide information on fume cupboards designed for radioactive isotopes; I am aware of several that were used in the past at my alma mater.
Maybe it would be appropriate to include in the lead a note that there are ~~grades~~ classes of containment, but right now there is no body section that it would summmarise. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

out of the area = out of the enclosure?
I mean to state that it draws air out of the room the device is in; tried to better explain this.

Per WP:LEADCITE, it not required for statements in the lead to be cited but IMO it is wise to have a hidden note () to say that it is a positive choice not an omission.
I've added a comment.

History

If you are going to say that ~~Edison~~ Jefferson created the first fume cupboard, it needs a date. ~~Was it really before 1904?~~ More generally, what has been called is WP:WEASEL: who called it that? what qualifications do they have to be taken seriously? And as it doesn't seem to have had a front cover, can it really be called a fume cupboard at all?

Fume hoods were originally manufactured from wood, but during the 1970s and 1980s epoxy powder-coated steel became the norm. During the 1990s, wood pulp derivatives treated with phenolic resin (plastic laminates and solid grade laminates) for chemical resistance and flame spread retardance started to become widely accepted. Both assertions need citations.
Both points have been addressed with a source reassessment and rewrite.
Yes, that resolves the issue satisfactorily. (As you may have guessed that I confused my -sons, hence the strikeout.)

Description

Six sides, surely. The door is part of the enclosure.
My bad on that. I've changed it, though I don't have a specific source stating how many sides are in a fume hood - you can kind of tell by looking at it. Unless you don't count the duct on top as a side, since it's technically open.
I think we can assume cuboid though no doubt someone somewhere has a spherical pressure vessel. If you really meant five sides as in four walls and a floor, with a "special ceiling", you need to specify.
This method of airflow control is intended to: None of these statements are cited.
They are cited now.
- protect the user from inhaling toxic gases (fume hoods, biosafety cabinets, glove boxes). Not just inhalation, but also from skin contact (though maybe that only applies to gloveboxes and biosafety cabinets?)
- Parenthesised note: "fume hoods" is redundant; biosafety cabinet and glovebox are separate articles, distinguishable from fume cupboards.
- Same query about the parenthesised notes on the next two sections.
- IMO, lose all the parenthesised notes.
  Done, except to specify in "protecting the environment".
For exceptionally hazardous materials,: give both types of advanced containment systems, not just one.
What do you mean by this? I did include gas cabinets, if that was missing.
biosafety cabinet and glovebox
I only mention glovebox as it can be seen as a direct upgrade in terms of separating the user from the hazard by putting physical barriers between both. Only the Class III biosafety cabinet would be necessarily described as an advanced containment system - I can clarify if need be, but in my experience and in the lab safety literature the term almost always refers to a Class II or IIB, which is often providing similar or less protection than a standard fume cupboard.

Pausing review temporarily

"I'll be back" --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this - I did address a couple things in the lead section. (Edit - I've done more than that now. When I first worked on this article it was a huge mess of OR, and my method of rewriting may have missed some of that.) Recon rabbit

I'm not really back yet, hopefully tomorrow. But yes, I sympathise, I had exactly the same problem getting Robert Hooke out from under years of accumulated detritus and getting it sourced properly. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Build materials

The phrase The steel may be substituted for a non-ferrous metal reads very oddly to me, that the (new) substituting material is steel and the substituted (old) material is non-ferrous. Is this a particularly US expression? Anyway, I suggest "replaced by" as unambiguous. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Control and monitoring panels

In are required by ANSI and EN, I suggest putting the EN citation at the end of the sentence too.

Construction and installation

Up to you, because it faithfully replicates the source, but I would write One EN standard requires that the face of a fume hood be installed such that it is at least 1,000 millimetres (3.3 ft) from any space where there is frequent movement. as "at least one meter (3.3 ft)" since you summarising the source.

Maintenance

Again, subjective but I would write to ensure consistent functionality; as "to ensure consistently safe operation". [This is not a GA criterion! The article passes the "well written" test.]

Content check complete

GA criteria met thus far. Next to do: source verification.

Source verification

I cannot see anything like the list of construction materials in the citation of ~~https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK55867/~~ "How To Select The Right Laboratory Hood System"
Citation 83 at "Use of sensors" is inconsistent in style with the rest of the article.
It is not obvious to me that citations 98 and 99 support the statement In some cases, large-scale upgrades may be required to maintain compliance, especially in older units as new occupational safety regulations come into effect. This is an important assertion that needs a solid foundation.

I'm afraid that I need you to recheck all the citations to verify that they do in fact support the statements made. I checked five and three have failed verification. I will have to mark the GAR as "on hold" until you can assure me that you have done so and resolved any issues arising. That done, I will award GA. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find where a list of construction materials is rreferenced with that particular book (Prudent practices in the laboratory), can you point it out specifically? To address the other two points, 83 and 98 are holdovers from the previous version of the article before I started work on it - I'll review everything that I didn't add myself. 99 just serves as a point of reference for a laboratory standard that some fume hoods are held to - it may not be useful here. Recon rabbit 03:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, merely correcting the three items I found will not be enough because I did not check every citation exhaustively. The key point is to verify in every case that the citation given does actually support the statement made. In the ones you 'inherited', you had best check for copyvios and close paraphrasing as your predecessors may not have been so conscientious.

Several common materials used for the exterior construction of a modern fume hood include. It seems that I copied the wrong citation but I don't see it in the intended ["How To Select The Right Laboratory Hood System" (PDF). University of Nebraska–Lincoln]. What drew my attention to it is that two of the suggested materials are cited in their own right but polypropylene is not. (The list continues but I stopped at that point.)

The NIH document is a very good one and almost deserves having a sentence added if only to retain it. I was looking for some statement that, if a hood fails compliance checks, it must be taken out of use until repaired or replaced. Even the NIH document seemed to equivocate about that. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC) revised 09:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked every citation from the version of the article from 2023 before I started working on it in the process of making this edit. I have only kept those that supported the text here. There was some concerning material from "CAV, VAV & RAV" that was very closely paraphrased - that's been addressed.

I was looking at the wrong section for the build materials list. Once again I don't know how I missed it - the documentation on polypropylene is focused more on its use as a liner material, but in general construction it finds use in cleanrooms as an inexpensive chemical-resistant build material, so that's been clarified with the material I have.

I agree that there was some wording missing about discontinuing work in a nonfunctional cabinet. I've put the NIH document in context and added a reference from the CRC handbook. It's difficult to find wording outside of the safety guidebooks that state outright not to use a hood that doesn't function, as it's either taken for granted or assumed that the person performing maintenance will correct any deficiencies when they are identified. Recon rabbit 15:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I thought I read, but now realise that I had not, was that when new standards come out, do existing cabinets have to be retrofitted to comply or taken out of use. If it is true, then it would certainly be noteworthy. (In a way, if it is not true, it is also noteworthy but that would be difficult to say without a WP:OR violation. Also, it might vary by jurisdiction and by application, so maybe a can of worms best left unopened.)

Now that you have done the citations check, I will award GA. You might want to identify three candidates for WP:Did you know "hooks". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classes

You don't seem to have added a section on classes of hood? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which classes are missing? I'm only aware of biosafety cabinets having distinct classes - fume hoods are divided up by their specific applications and mechanisms, which is enumerated in bypass CAV, VAV, canopy, ductless, scrubber, floor-mounted, etc. Recon rabbit 14:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned classes in an earlier reply but their significance was unclear. If you don't consider them significant, I'm happy to drop it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Passed GA

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	✓ Pass
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	✓ Pass
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	✓ Pass
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	✓ Pass
	2c. it contains no original research.	✓ Pass
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	✓ Pass
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	✓ Pass
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	✓ Pass
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	✓ Pass
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	✓ Pass
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	✓ Pass
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	✓ Pass
	7. Overall assessment.	✓ Pass

I am pleased to declare that, in my opinion, the article meets the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]