Talk:Buckeye gasoline buggy/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: JPxG (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already doing John William Lambert, so I will do this one as well. jp×g 00:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary notes

Copyvio

Y Earwig's scan says nothing is sus.

Stability

Y Article is stable. No substantial disputes have taken place since its creation in 2008, aside from a couple reverted vandalism edits. Of course, the title of first gasoline automobile has historically been a subject of controversy, but this article itself is not really controversial.

POV

Y While the article noticeably stans Lambert, it's all backed up by reliable sources, so this doesn't constitute undue POV.

Media

Y All media is high quality and in the public domain. I performed some contrast adjustment on one of the images to make it clearer.

Focus / scope / coverage / completeness

Y Talks about the Buckeye gasoline buggy, and provides necessary background information (the state of the auto industry in the 1890s as well as the process of Lambert designing and testing the vehicle, and afterwards, the subsequent development of the car into an auto platform, and the fate of the company that produced it). Does not get into the weeds with irrelevant details.

Prose / MoS

Y Lead c/e'd
N He did his first outside driving in late February of that year, on the main street of the city In John William Lambert, it says that he did all of his test drives on back roads and in secret. What happened?

He did his initial secret drives in January 1891. In late February 1891 he put his vehicle in operation on the streets of Ohio City.

Okay, cool.

one-seat, two-passenger One driver and two passengers? Or one driver and one passenger? Regardless, where did the passengers sit? = Done One driver and one passenger that sat next to driver on the one-seat bench.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Y Broke content out into sections.
N It produced 2,000 vehicles per year on average from 1906 to 1910 with 500 employeers hiring more workers each year. The company employed over a thousand workers by 1910 This means that there were 500 employees in 1906 and 1000 in 1910, right? jp×g 21:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done - yes. that is correct. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ref check

Most of these references are the same as used in John William Lambert, which I just verified for the GA review on that article, and are used to support basically the same stuff as they said in that article. These seem to be doing most of the heavy lifting in this article as well.
Y Ref 1 is good.
Y Could not verify Ref 2, but no reason to suspect it is bad (it's an SAE publication)
Y 3 could stand to be linked, but not a big deal because its only claim is also backed up by 4. Done Added another web source inline ref from Ohio History Central. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the sentence that 3 and 4 support is also supported by a number of the refs from John William Lambert, which might be nice to add in here (since the one source I could get at seemed like a tangential mention).

Y Ref 4 is good.
Y Ref 5 (also from the JWL article) is good.
Ref 6 seems like kind of a lackluster source. Surely, Carl Benz and Gottlieb Daimler's articles have something better than this. Done Added additional reference from Daimler article. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 08:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 7 is the same story as Ref 6. Cute cartoon of a car on that page, though.
Ref 8 was inaccessible to me, so I added a second cite to that sentence (which is now Ref 9).
Y Ref 9 found at Detroit Automobile Company, verified and added here.
The former ref 10 couldn't be found anywhere, so I have commented it out (does not really seem crucial to the article).
Y Ref 10 was inaccessible, but it wasn't load-bearing (the statement was backed up by other statements) so did not verify it individually.
Y Ref 11 (also from the JWL article) is good.
Y Ref 12 wasn't load-bearing (the only statement relying on it was backed up by other statements) so did not verify it individually.
Y Ref 13 is the same work as ref 2; not load-bearing, and a RS.
Former ref 14 (a Honda ad?) is really a stretch. Commenting it out.
Ref 15 (Bailey) doesn't seem to be in the sources, should be linked to Ref 5 if possible (or Ref 5 included in Sources and then page numbers linked to with each cite = Done--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC) ).[reply]
Ref 16 couldn't be accessed but looks like a RS to me.
Y Ref 17 is good.
Y Ref 18 is good.
Y Ref 19 is the same as Ref 16.
Y Ref 20 (also from the JWL article) is good.

Conclusion

@Doug Coldwell: Everything here looks good, am ready to pass as soon as the one thing about employment figures mentioned above is figured out. jp×g 22:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:JPxG Looked over all the references to make sure they were correct and added some additional references where appropriate.--Doug Coldwell (talk)

Looking good. Passing! jp×g 19:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]