Talk:Lambert friction gearing disk drive transmission/GA1
 | This orphaned talk page, subpage, image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia. If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. |
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 07:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Primary sourced to patents and contemporary news reports; there is only a single footnote to a later source, an Arcadia book (of dubious reliability) which says that Lambert's cars started in 1902 using a transmission of Lambert's design (but not that it is this specific transmission) but switched as early as 1906 to a chain drive. The article's regurgitated text copied from the patent is both difficult to understand and shows little evidence of having been understood by the Wikipedia article's author (for instance, most of the third paragraph final paragraph of the "Description" section say the same thing, redundantly, in different words). Little or no section structure: other than a brief lead section and a one-sentence section on a related patent, everything is crammed into a single "Description" section. Other than one line "more successful than other cars that attempted friction driving" there is no context, no description of the long-term success or failure of this invention, the usefulness of this patent as a part of Lambert's business portfolio, why Lambert might have been inventing and patenting car parts at that time, whether any later technology ever developed out of this work, or anything else.
I conclude that the article is currently very far from meeting WP:GACR 1a (the prose is not well-written and intelligable, or even uniformly grammatical). It is very far from meeting 1b (it has no section layout to speak of). It is very far from meeting 2b because of its heavy reliance on primary sources. It is very far from meeting 3a because of the lack of context and it is very far from meeting 3b because it goes into excessive detail in patentese, copied from the patent, about the detailed structure of the patented work. The other criteria are less problematic but, because it is very far from five criteria, it more than meets WP:GAFAIL #1.