Talk:Roper steam velocipede/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 12:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have read through the article several times (prior to starting the review) and it is generally looking good. I will make notes as I go, dealing with the lead at the end.

Date

 * "because they have patents". Who is the "they"? Classic Bike? Perreaux-Michaux? Needs clarifying.

True motorcycle?

 * "while the steam velocipedes might have been motorcycles, they are not the first motorcycles" seems to suggest that they were the second or third. Clarification needed.
 * "the honor should go to the machine which blazed a trail". It is not obvious which this is, since at least two are mentioned.
 * "principles of rake and trail to remain upright via the front fork and turn by leaning". This needs a little more explanation for non-motorcycle readers. Suggest something like ...principles of rake and trail of the front fork [geometry?] to improve stability, and to enable the machine to be steered by the rider leaning sideways. You can probably think of something better.
 * "principles of rake and trail to remain upright via the front fork and turn by leaning". This needs a little more explanation for non-motorcycle readers. Suggest something like ...principles of rake and trail of the front fork [geometry?] to improve stability, and to enable the machine to be steered by the rider leaning sideways. You can probably think of something better.
 * "principles of rake and trail to remain upright via the front fork and turn by leaning". This needs a little more explanation for non-motorcycle readers. Suggest something like ...principles of rake and trail of the front fork [geometry?] to improve stability, and to enable the machine to be steered by the rider leaning sideways. You can probably think of something better.

1867-1869 version

 * "a solid handlebar with wooden grips, which was rotated forward". Was the whole handlebar rotated forward, or was it the grips? "was" suggests the first.

1884–1896 version

 * "first built in 1884 and developed up to Roper's death in 1896 while riding a version using an 1893 Pope Columbia safety bicycle, used a single-cylinder coal fired steam engine added to the center of the frame". It took me several goes to get the sense of this. Can it be reworked for clarity? Maybe ...first built in 1884 and developed until 1896, when Roper died while riding ... or somesuch.
 * "exhibition in 2001". The wikipedia article on the exhibition says 1998, and is supported by a number of refs. I don't have access to Krens (2003) to check it.
 * Guggenheim Las Vegas is a redirect, and perhaps could be clarified that it is a museum / art gallery or whatever. A few more words would help.
 * Guggenheim Las Vegas is a redirect, and perhaps could be clarified that it is a museum / art gallery or whatever. A few more words would help.
 * Guggenheim Las Vegas is a redirect, and perhaps could be clarified that it is a museum / art gallery or whatever. A few more words would help.

General

 * Smithsonian could do with a location (Washington DC?) (like Owls Head Museum) for all us non-Americans in either the lead or the Date section.

Lead

 * The lead seems just a little short. It should introduce the article and summarise its main points. I think it works well as an introduction, but not so much as a summary. Perhaps a sentence on why there are several contenders for first motorcyle (uncertainty of date and of what constitutes a motorcycle), and another on the two models might help. I know length of lead is an ill-defined art, so you may want to debate this one.

The formal bit

 * 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 (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * I should have all these issues fixed in a few days or sooner. Will comment if I have questions. Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * All issues have now been addressed. I have made a few more tweaks to the rake and trail section, without, I think, altering the meaning at all, which you might like to check. Congratulations on an interesting article, which I am now awarding GA status. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I have some more sources to add to the last paragraph, which will connect the dots between the disparate references to the fate of the 1894 version. There is agreement that in fact there is unbroken provenance from the machine Roper died riding to the machine that resided in various museums, and was put up for auction recently. That should make it much less opaque. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)