Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics
Nominating: this article seems to me to be featured article material, it provides comprehensive and accurate coverage of a much misunderstood subject, and cites both primary and secondary sources from the expert literature. -- The Anome 22:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- As there are no official Wikipedia guidelines regarding the role of the FA director or how an article is promoted to featured status I am giving this article my support. Please see the discussions [[1]] and [[2]] at the featured article talk page for my reasoning.
[edit] What still needs to be done?
-
- Clean up notes and references. There seems to be a few different styles in use.
- -Worked on, perhaps done.
- Does the section on braking belong? It is certainly a part of bike physics, but it is not mentioned in the intro, and I can't think of a good way to add it.
- -Now mentioned in lead section
- Is the section on misconceptions appropriate?
- A picture showing the relevant forces (gravitational, inertial if in a turn, aerodynamic, and ground reaction) would be nice.
- -Added in turning section
- Turning and braking could also use an illustration, but I can't think of what they would be, yet.
- Should 'Turning' and 'Braking' come before 'Wobble and Shimmy' and 'Stability with full suspension'? They seem to be more basic.
- -Well, wobble, shimmy, and stability all relate to balance, so leave them there.
AndrewDressel 01:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Name change?
-
- After reading the FA requirements, especially for lead section, I'm thinking of changing the title to "Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics". Dynamics is a much better fit than physics. Otherwise, in order to be complete, the article would need to be expanded to include performance, efficiency, etc. Given the very different power plants and speed ranges of bicycle and motorcycles, I believe this would be impractical. Comments? AndrewDressel 14:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- -Done. AndrewDressel 14:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Suggestions
1. This article is awfully light on non-science explanations - it would be nice if instead of "Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics is the science of the motions and forces of bicycles and motorcycles. It includes how they balance, steer, and brake." and so on that it was a bit simplified for the casual reader. For example, something like "Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics is the science of the steering, balancing, and breaking of bicycles and motorcycles." or something (I imagine that is incorrect but hopefully helps someone).
-
- -Thanks for the suggestion on the lead paragraph. I tried to model it after other science articles, and it was a mess. AndrewDressel 01:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
2. "Examples of misconception" scares me - if it were me I'd nuke it - it seems pointless and something the reader should decide. Ditto for the mention of "incorrect" online examples (which, BTW, in these articles one really needs to be more specific then just "online").
-
- -The problem is that with the prevalence of these misconceptions, it could seem that the article is incomplete without at least addressing them. AndrewDressel 01:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
3. "careful" in the lead is really redundant and speculative without attribution - "in fact", again, makes me think that the article is trying to prove some sort of point.
-
- -Again, there are sites that refer to holding a spinning bicycle wheel to see how the gyroscopic effect keeps a bike upright. However, this is not correct. AndrewDressel 01:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
4. The lead should really have less stubby "paragraphs" 5. Referencing is a bit odd, I'd recommend some sort of script to convert those links to some other more accessable reference style.
-
- -Isn't this "Embedded HTML links" as desicribed in Wikipedia:Citing sources?AndrewDressel 01:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
6. "The design charactersics of a bike can affect the stability in the following ways"
- a. "caractersics" is misspelled :) -Ouch AndrewDressel 01:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- b. This list should really be turned into prose
7. "A bike is a nonholonomic system because its outcome is path-dependent" and now the writer has lost me :(. This makes it difficult to evaluate the article... RN 08:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Good job on improving the article!! I'm still uncomfortable with the misconception section, but even that is quite a bit better. Hopefully you'll get some comments from someone else! RN 06:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
