Talk:Wheelie bike

Stub?
Hmmm. Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition seems a little harsh.

Before I just change the rating, perhaps we can itemize what the article has and lacks:
 * Has
 * References: books, recognized experts, newspaper articles, etc. All of it with URLs for casual verification.
 * History: who, when, where, and how much.
 * Features: wheels, saddles, handlebars, tires, brakes, gearing, shifting, add-ons.
 * Other: sales amounts, global reach, safety issues, manufacturers, variations.
 * Pictures: decent representation from the two primary brands.
 * Lacks
 * More pictures
 * More information about the people involved.

Is not useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study a better description? -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You're more than welcome to change the rating, I rated a few hundred unassessed articles today and only really had a matter of seconds to do each. Mistakes do happen. Taking a second look, I would rate this article as Start-Class. The first criteria of C-Class is The article is substantial which I don't see here. But you're more than welcome to change it to whatever you like. SeveroTC 13:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)