Misplaced Pages

Talk:Imme R100

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Legobot (talk | contribs) at 03:14, 27 January 2013 (BOT: Adding |oldid=535001310 to {{GA}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:14, 27 January 2013 by Legobot (talk | contribs) (BOT: Adding |oldid=535001310 to {{GA}})(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Good articlesImme 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.
Review: January 26, 2013. (Reviewed version).
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:
A fact from Imme R100 appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 March 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2012/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Imme R100.
Misplaced Pages

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)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Imme R100/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Moswento (talk · contribs) 17:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll review this one. Initial comments to follow later today or tomorrow. Moswento 17:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, kudos for working on an under-represented GA topic area. Generally, a good article that covers the topic in appropriate depth. However, I have some queries and comments about the text and references, which I've put below.

Assessment

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments

Lead

*The second sentence is currently very long and would be easier to follow broken up rather than as one long list.

  • You use the words 'innovative' and 'innovation', yet don't really mention in the article what was 'innovative' about the bike (apart from the Ultan Guilfoyle quote)
  • I realise a degree of jargon is unavoidable in this kind of article, but it would be good to be careful about this in the lead. For instance, "the complete drivetrain mounted on the swingarm" could do with rephrasing, or some kind of explanation for the non-technical reader.
    • Killed probably three birds with one stone: I moved the long second sentence to the "Legacy" section, split it in two, added the relevant citations, and tied it in with the displays at the Guggenheim and Barber museums. The sentence was replaced in the lead by a short summary of the sentence that was removed. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
      • All looks good to me
  • "The Imme R100 was one of the motorcycles included in "The Art of the Motorcycle" exhibition at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in 1998." - It would be good to mention why this is significant, both here and later in the article (i.e. that the motorcycles at the exhibition were chosen for certain reasons, with a cite of course)
    • I will get back to this one; hopefully during the weekend just beginning. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
      • OK, that would be nice, although it isn't essential for GA, as the reworded legacy section shows the reason it was selected.
Concept, design and engineering

*"After the end of the Second World War, motorcycle engineer Norbert Riedel concluded " - this makes it sound like Riedel was prompted to build the bike because of something that happened in the Second World War. Perhaps give the Second World War less prominence in the sentence, and substitute "concluded", e.g. "Motorcycle engineer Norbert Riedel began to design the Imme R100 after the Second World War, realising the need for..." or similar

*"Riedel then developed the engine" - can you be more specific about the 'then'? Was this the same year?

*Sentence beginning "The power output of the engine" could be split, probably after "at the time"

*The citations in that sentence could be streamlined too - e.g. just to have FN2 & 5 at the end of "at the time", and not to include FN3 at that point (unless it's absolutely needed)

*Does the sentence "The engine and transmission were mounted..." really need 4 footnotes? It's not a particularly controversial statement, so choosing the one or two best refs would be fine. Same goes for two other sentences in the same paragraph

    • The German-language and offline (book) citations have been removed from the sentence mentioned, and the offline citation has been removed from another sentence in the paragraph. I have left another sentence with its three references, as your next suggestion suggests it might be controversial. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

*"gave the appearance of a "power egg"" - this could be rephrased; currently sounds very odd as there is no such thing as a "power egg"

    • There were three references mentioning the term "power egg", one of which mentioned that the drivetrain style was later used by Benelli and Motobi. These references have been moved to the end of the sentence, which has been rewritten for clarity. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
      • "Power egg style" is definitely better phrasing, I think
Reception

*This section contains a lot about production, as well as reception. I wouldn't necessarily suggest splitting the material, but perhaps rename to "Production and reception"?

  • Given that they don't have a wiki-article, some context about Riedel AG would be nice, although not essential. I assume they were Norbert Riedel's company? Was this the first bike they had produced? When were they founded? Just a few words for context.
    • Based on the sources, it seems as if Riedel AG was created to design and build the Imme R100. I hadn't found a start date, but I'll look through the sources again. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Again, would be nice if you could find something, but not essential for GA

*"It is widely believed that the name "Imme"" - sounds like original research, needs a cite for this sentence if not

*"or from the engine sounding like a buzzing bee" - I couldn't find this in the source. I may have missed it, of course.

    • Here's the quote:

"The Imme’s 98cc engine is a simple piston port two-stroke engine producing 4.5hp. Using a three-speed gearbox, the little machine can accelerate easily to a speed of 50mph. Under full load, the little engine hums like a feisty bee, hence the logo on the tank." – Kruger, Ralf (1/16/2012). "Outstanding German two-strokes we shouldn't forget: Part Four, the 1950s". Ed Youngblood's MotoHistory – Ed Youngblood's News & Views – January 2012 Archive. Inverness, FL USA. 5th article down, 5th paragraph down in the article (not including the Editor's Note). Retrieved 2012-02-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |work= (help)

On my computer, it's near the picture of the Imme R100 advertisement with the woman in the yellow blouse and light blue shorts sitting on the motorcycle. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Ah, sorry, not sure how I missed that! Thanks for clarifying!

*"made it popular in the marketplace." - this sounds like sales language, especially due to the repetition, which doesn't really add anything. Would be good to rephrase, possibly splitting the sentence into two.

  • "beginning with the Model D version," - year?
    • No year is given in the source. I will do a Google search. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Again, a year would be nice but not essential. "Model D" means it must be a later model, and given that it was only in production for a few years, it's fine as it is if your Google search is unsuccessful.
Legacy

*Just a suggestion, but I would personally switch the Fend Flitzer and the ZMG paragraphs so that the latter comes first.

*Again just a suggestion, but I think the quotation would have more impact inline, after the relevant text (i.e. Ultan Guilfoyle, curatorial adviser, said...)

References

*Ref 1 - As far as I can tell, this is a classified advert, which would not be a reliable source

  • Ref 7 - this doesn't need the "quote" parameter, as the quote is included in the text


      • I think the article has definitely improved. I'm now satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria - the additional points above would be optional extras if you wanted to work on the article further. Good work! Moswento 16:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Categories: