Misplaced Pages

Talk:Imme R100: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:14, 28 January 2013 editMoswento (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled22,891 edits no longer transcluding GA review← Previous edit Revision as of 14:06, 29 January 2013 edit undoGimmeBot (talk | contribs)Bots75,273 editsm Bot updating {{ArticleHistory}}Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ArticleHistory
{{GA|16:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)|topic=Transport|page=1|oldid=535001310}}
|action1=GAN
|action1date=16:17, 26 January 2013
|action1link=Talk:Imme R100/GA1
|action1result=listed
|action1oldid=534997973
|dykdate=12 March 2012
⚫ |dykentry=... that the single-sided ] of the 1949 ''']''' ''(pictured)'' was also the motorcycle's ]?
|currentstatus=GA
|topic=Transport
}}
{{WikiProject Motorcycling|small = {{WikiProject Motorcycling|small =
|class = GA |class = GA
Line 5: Line 15:
|listas = |listas =
}} }}
⚫ {{dyktalk|12 March|2012|entry=... that the single-sided ] of the 1949 ''']''' ''(pictured)'' was also the motorcycle's ]?}}

==DYK nomination== ==DYK nomination==
{{Template:Did you know nominations/Imme R100}} {{Template:Did you know nominations/Imme R100}}

Revision as of 14:06, 29 January 2013

Good articleImme R100 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 26, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Did You KnowA fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 12, 2012.The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the single-sided swingarm of the 1949 Imme R100 (pictured) was also the motorcycle's exhaust pipe?
WikiProject iconMotorcycling GA‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorcycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorcycling on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MotorcyclingWikipedia:WikiProject MotorcyclingTemplate:WikiProject MotorcyclingMotorcycling
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:



 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

DYK nomination

External links to YouTube videos

I would like to start an "External links" section with links to two videos of Imme R100 motorcycles I have found on YouTube. For the purposes of this discussion, and in the hope that I am not violating policy by posting the links here, the links in question are: IMME R100 seen running at WEST KENT SHOW on YouTube and IMME R 100 Originalzustand unrestauriert läuft on YouTube

I have read WP:YOUTUBE and WP:ELNO and I have the following conclusions and concerns:

  • The videos are almost certainly home videos and do not appear to be copied from movies, television, or commercially released videos or DVDs. The risk of them having been uploaded to YouTube in violation of copyright seems quite low. Is this good enough, or is there anything further I would need to check?
  • Items 2-6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 19 of "Links normally to be avoided" do not seem to apply in this instance. Please correct me if I am wrong on this.
  • Item 1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." The two videos in question show running Imme R100 motorcycles (one running stationary on its main stand, the other being ridden) at various angles, focusing on various parts of the motorcycle. (There is another video of a running Imme R100 that does not meet this criterion, as it has a fixed angle and a fixed width; as such, it is little more descriptive than a photograph, and photos are already in the article.)
  • Item 7: "Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser or in a specific country." I am fairly certain, although not absolutely certain, that YouTube is accessible globally.
  • Item 8: "Direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content, unless the article is about such file formats. See rich media for more details." I think Flash is required to watch YouTube videos. Would Template:YouTube give "an explicit indication of the technology needed to access the relevant content" as required in the "Rich media" subsection?
  • Item 10: "Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists." Is this applicable to YouTube?
  • Item 13: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked." Based on the content of the videos, as described in my argument for Item 1, the videos are directly related to the topic.
  • Item 15: "Links to sites already linked through Misplaced Pages sourcing tools. For example, instead of linking to a commercial book site, consider the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Map sources can be linked by using geographical coordinates." I have no idea whether this applies or not. Please advise me of any sourcing tools that might find equivalent content.
  • Item 17: "Affiliate, tracking or referral links i.e. links that contain information about who is to be credited for readers that follow the link. If the source itself is helpful, use a neutral link without the tracking information." I am not clear on what this means, so I do not know if it is applicable to YouTube videos. Please advise.
  • Item 20: "External links as sole entries in stand-alone lists and embedded lists." I don't think this applies, but I'm not sure, so I added it here.

Please advise me as to whether these links would be acceptable as content in an "External links" section.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The first video is excellent. The second one I'm ambivalent about. However I think your summary of both is right on the money in terms of their applicability to the article. And yes I think using the {{youtube}} template is the right way to go. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I shall add the first one right away. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Categories: