Talk:Gear failure

Reviewer 2

Hi,

The article is great. I've fixed some grammatical errors and typos but the overall content is amazing. Hassaan72 (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Hassaan72 thanks for your contribution Loscimmio (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Review 1

Hi! Thank you a lot for your contribution! Your article is very nice and detailed. However, I found and corrected many typos in the text. Also, I corrected some phrases/sentences that were difficult to read or too long and complex. For the future, try to stick to simpler sentences, with only one or two verbs, so they don't get confusing. I really appreciate the high level of technical details and the references to the standards. Maybe, you can insert more wikilinks in the text, since there are many technical terms that lack definitions. Or, maybe, you can just add the definitions directly in the text.

Happy editing!

Annika of Nine (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Annika of Nine thanks for your contribution. I'll try to improve the article as you suggested. Loscimmio (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer 3

Congratulations, this is a very well-written article. But there are some typos in the content which can be improved to better understanding and clarity. Additionally, the content is very technical (which is expected) but may cause problems for the general readers. Thanks Chauhanadi (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. Loscimmio (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: This page needs a major rewrite. It is written in apparent ignorance of the substantial, existing articles on Wear, Tribology and related issues. For instance, the #Wear section is quite bad, no mention of third bodies etc. There is more than this, for instance the substantive pages Pitting, Fatigue (material). Inadequate preparation, please read Dunning–Kruger effect.

Ldm1954 (talk) 13:14, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

good morning, thanks for your comment. The article was created as an overview of the failure mechanism of gears. This is the reason why the various mechanisms are not described in detail due to the presence of more complete articles(as you mentioned for the wear case), which were linked. Moreover it was requested to avoid to enter deeply in technical details to allow a larger public to be able to comprehend the topic. Loscimmio (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

This is not an excuse for errors, misleading representations and omission of important information. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Comments left by AfC reviewers

• Comment: This page has too many oversimplifications, technical terms without explanation, unsourced statements and inadequate science. For instance:
  1. The 2nd paragraph uses "Hertzian pressure" without definition, which is inappropriate science as this is for asperity contacts.
  2. Terms such as "pitch diameter" are never defined.
  3. Polishing is not relevant, but invoked here.
  4. too many more Ldm1954 (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Needs improvement

The article has done more than enough now to pass notability thresholds, and other criteria to be approved at AfC - however, there are still real problems due to grammar concerns, and areas where the focus of the article is unclear. This is all stuff that can be fixed in editing now that it’s live, but it would be nice if people got on to it sooner rather than later 👍 Absurdum4242 (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect statements in article (incomplete list)

1. 2nd paragraph, Hertzian pressure is not a phenomenon.
2. Wear section is a weak description of an established topic. What about third bodies, transfer layers etc?
3. While polishing can occur on contacts, it is different from wear.
4. The article implies polishing is bad, which in general is incorrect.
5. The "three bodies" statement is wrong, proper refs to and understanding of, for instance Singer's work is needed. It is not contaminants, it is fracture and other debris.
6. The description of heating (and flash heating) is very weak, there are many books on this.
7. Terms such as "breaks" after microwelding is awful science; fracture is established science.
8. In #Macropitting, the misunderstood "Hertzian pressure" appears again. It is a useful asperity stress model, not a phenomenon.
9. Micropitting will always occur if you look close enough, it should not be separated.

I will also comment that this is too much a how-to for calculations (WP:NOTATEXTBOOK) and has far too many unsourced sections. The claim made that "it was requested to avoid to enter deeply in technical details to allow a larger public to be able to comprehend the topic" does not justify inaccurate information. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)