Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wankel engine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Wankel engine

I beefed it up quite a bit today, mostly history, mostly racing, but other stuff as well. Gzuckier 22:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A well-written engine on an interesting engineering topic. This article has been stable, is not in dispute, and includes two decent pictures and some references. --SFoskett 18:09, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Object - insufficient lead, insufficient references (external links are not reference). The structure of the article also seems a bit wrong: shouldn't the last section ("Rotary combustion engines versus rotary engines") be incorporated into the first, "How it works" or the second / third ("Advantages" and "Disadvantages")? The two uses one use of the exclamation mark seem a bit unencyclopaedic (!) -- ALoan (Talk) 20:10, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Much much better, but still object - the last section ("History") still contains eight short paragraphs that don't flow very well. It may be useful to get the page peer reviewed. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:41, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object, agree with the above. Lead section is too short and this article has no references. External links alone are not references, but websites (external links) can be formatted as references as at Wikipedia:Cite sources if they are properly used as references to cite facts in the article or to fact check what is there, and they are from reliable sources. In any case, even if all three of the external links listed were used properly, that is still pretty minimal. - Taxman 21:35, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I'm not sure what else the lead would need, and what more would be required for reference or how that relates to external links (but I'm kind of new here). I moved that last section into its own article, though. Gzuckier 22:12, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I reformatted the References appropriately. Thanks for the suggestions! --SFoskett 00:28, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Can you confirm that those resources were properly used to fact check the article or add material to it? If you did not personally use them, it is innapropriate to characterize them as references. - Taxman 14:38, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • I personally own the two books listed and personally did consult them and the web site listed when making my own edits. They are excellent resources, by the way. --SFoskett 16:42, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
        • Works for me. But the lead section still needs expanding. - Taxman 18:43, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
          • I have expanded the lead section. This discussion has been very helpful - I went back and added references to many of the automobile articles I have written. --SFoskett 21:57, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Object: it is in dispute, but the dispute isn't active. nobody calls this a wankel engine in the real world and it's an incorrect name to begin with. the article is stable because the edit wars over the naming convention happened quite a while ago but the article is incomplete because of them. the real world name of "rotary engine" is used on wikipedia by some obsolete, centuries old, and rare even then airplane engine. the current production engines were designed by wankel, but the concept existed two hundred years earlier with steam.
  • ? The old airplane engine is a 'rotary engine', has been for about 100 years now; as for 'rare even then': "That the rotary engine dominated the early years of aviation is evident". The same site lists productions figures in the thousands for several rotary aircraft engines. Yes, many just call the Wankel engine a rotary engine, but 'nobody calls this a wankel engine'? Google comes up with > 40,000 sites for Wankel engine. Gzuckier 16:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Please include your name with posts. Regarding the Wankel vs. rotary debate, I believe that even Mazda would attribute the basic design to Wankel, even though they use the rotary name consistently. This is noted in the article. --SFoskett 16:42, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, in the UK it's commonly called a Wankel Rotary Engine, a name which is is cited by John Cleese as a sure-fire way of making British people grin. -Ashley Pomeroy 20:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)