Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bicycle/archive1

Bicycle

Although I've done just minor copyedits on this article this year, this qualifies as a self-nom, as I put it up last year, when it narrowly missed out. Several people have suggested that it be put up again. I believe all the objections raised then, and on a long since past nomination, have been resolved, except for one from a person who wanted a person along with the bike in the top photo. FWIW, we put out a request for more photos, and got several with people, but none which show the detail seen in the current lead photo. Sfahey 02:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Article is well written, referenced, and has great pictures. The objection that the lead picture needs a person in it is frivolous anyway I think. - Taxman 14:35, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Interestingly, I think I recall that that "objector" was actually very knowledgeable on bicycles, and had excellent input on the previously shaky "bicycle physics" section before that bizarre vote. Sfahey 03:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Good. However, in my browsers (Safari v125.12 and Firefox 1.0), the "MTB parts" picture overlaps with that under "Legal requirements". Phils 15:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Image:BikePartsEnglishAndSpanish.jpg should be replaced. It is likely a copyvio, and even if it's not, it is of too low quality (too much JPG blur, and text shouldn't be in the image). Fredrik | talk 16:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Now that I have a solid (copy vio.) reason, to go along with its being too big, inappropriately bilingual, and kind of ugly, it's gone. A replacement, along the lines of the "reflector" diagram, would be great. BTW, can anyone fix it so you can get to the "edit" version of this page from the wp:fac page. It now mis-links. Thanks. Sfahey 03:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Now the link works again. Go figure.
• Support. A nice detailed overview of the bicycle. --Jcmaco 22:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support but I think with the bicycle being such an important part of modern Chinese culture, there should be a photo of its use there. I recall having seen a photo of Tinnamen Square with hundreds, if not thousands of bicycles taken in 1980s or 1990s which was quite impressive. Revth 04:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object. As with my previous objections to this article, this article needs at least a section on bicycle racing (giving an overview and referring to a specilized article). Furthermore, the "Types of bicycle" section should be made to prose, I think. Many of the bikes mentioned here deserved a little more text, while several more obscure bikes need not be mentioned here and could be removed from the list. A separate list article can be made with all the bikes. 82.161.112.78 08:07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • You are certainly correct on the "bicycle racing" suggestion, and this has been rectified just as you suggested. Regarding the "Types of bicycles" section, I considered those changes last year, but elected to keep this as a sort of "appendix", because MANY had contributed to it in this form, and it contained just enough "whimsy" (exercise bike, unicycle) to make it interesting. Also, if it were put in text form, it would eventually become dreadfully unreadable, considering the number of writers chipping in. I did shrink "clown bike" and some other sections, and hope the article now merits your (apparently knowledgeable) support. Sfahey 18:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll withdraw my objection, but I'll not give my support, as I still think the "types" section can be improved. Jeronimo 12:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. It's a great article! One of the best I've seen, sincerely. --Neigel von Teighen 18:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Because I love bikes ;-) (Also contributed to this article so am doubly biased) --Sf 10:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)