Talk:Imme R100/GA1

GA Review
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 talky 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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

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


 * I will work on the lead last, so that it will reflect all the relevant changes made to the article. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

*"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 *"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"
 * Concept, design and engineering
 * Rewrote the sentence to emphasize that the need for the simple, cheap bike stemmed from the postwar recovery in Germany. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's much better for context
 * "Then" changed to "next", to establish the sequence of events. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely helpful
 * Done. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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

*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"? *"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. "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." –
 * Reception
 * Section renamed "Production, marketing, and demise". Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice
 * 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
 * Citations added. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's the quote:
 * 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)

*"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.
 * Ah, sorry, not sure how I missed that! Thanks for clarifying!
 * Sentence edited, but not split. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That sentence now reads much better. You're right that a semi-colon is probably a better alternative to splitting the sentence
 * "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.

*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...)
 * Legacy
 * I am not sure why; the Riedel engines were used in the Flitzer while they were in production, while the ZMG effort occured after Riedel went out of business. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have moved the mention of the Imme engines in Flitzers from "Legacy" to the section formerly known as "Reception". Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes more sense, good idea
 * Done. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

*Ref 1 - As far as I can tell, this is a classified advert, which would not be a reliable source
 * References
 * Ref 7 - this doesn't need the "quote" parameter, as the quote is included in the text
 * Ref 1 removed, along with information that relied solely on that reference. The quote has been removed from Ref 7. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have done what I can for right now. I will address the remaining concerns later; hopefully over the weekend. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 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 talky 16:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)