Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics/2

Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Bicycle_and_motorcycle_dynamics/2&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • GAN review not found
 * Result: The article's clarity and good prose will remain, it simply does not meet the requirements for a green blob. NBD. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material and thus does not meet GA criterion 2b); at well over 11,000 words, it is likely also excessively detailed and violating criterion 3b). AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, as things go in the 2020s, you're correct. I've just had a good look at the article and for the record, it is remarkably clear and well-written, and admirably illustrated with math, diagrams, photos, and examples, to the extent that a biologist can read it with ease and pleasure: quite the engineering accomplishment. This was, in fact, a well-deserved GA back in the day. As for its length, it would be very difficult to split or condense as it is coherently written, and all the sections are at a similar level of detail. As for citing it to today's standards, that would require highly specific expertise; and the question of how to cite the "illustrations" in the broad sense I've used is a thorny one which I don't believe Wikipedia has adequately thought through. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)