Talk:Inline skates/GA1

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

Nominator: Fred Hsu (talk · contribs) 02:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pbsouthwood (talk · contribs) 11:29, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I will give this one a go. First impressions are that it ids thorough and detailed. I have done one ref check so far and it was good. There have been a few points that I think need to be clarified if possible, and I will mark them in text with the ^{[clarification needed]} template. For background, I am an engineer, but not a skater. This may affect my requests for clarification. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I am indebted to you for such detailed requests for clarification and other pointers you added to the article. I will investigate and address. But it may take longer than usual. I have a week to write a rebuttal to a patent application rejection, so I won't have my full attention on this GA as I wished to. I will ping you when most things are addressed, so you don't need to frequently check. Thanks so much. Fred Hsu (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for adding that section sizes template. I had no idea it existed. I will continue to trim the article using that as a guide. But that will take even longer. My plan is to eventually first shift attention to child articles I split. They need to be cleaned up, wikilinked and have bolded words removed the same way I did for the main article. Then I will slowly move better-phrased summaries I made on the main article into child articles, and then further reduce the main article. It will take long. Fred Hsu (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't mind a bit of delay, but good enough is good enough. Perfection is neither required nor expected, and improving further after GA is fine and normal, and from what I have seen so far this is very close to good enough. Obviously there are things I have not checked yet that could be obstacles, but there is nothing I have seen yet that I would fail it on, so I will continue to assess and report back, and you can let me know what you plan to do about anything I bring up in the comments. This will also take some time, because there is so much of it. Fortunately a lot of the content is basic mechanical engineering, and fairly obvious to a mechanical engineer, which makes it easy to check. When I have finished working through the checklistI will specify what is necessary for a pass, and what is just further suggestions for improvement later. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I addressed all of these clearly annotated clarification notes you left. Thank you for lending a fresh pair of eyes that identified quality and logical issues I was blind to. The article is currently at this version. I am going to take a break to go back to my patent rebuttal. But when I resume, I will try to read the article using the same fresh viewpoints, and add my own clarification-needed notes for the rest of the article. Cheers! Fred Hsu (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Review report

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Discussion

Why the quotes in "Wheel diameter" plays another key role in rolling resistance, especially on "rough terrain".? OK, for rough terrain there is some uncertainty as to what the reader might consider "rough", but wheel diameter is unambiguous. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
I will address the abuse of double quotes further. I have been balancing two contradictory goals: 1) write in prose, vs. 2) highlight related or contrasting terms a la engineering/math textbooks. You will be horrified if you look at the rewritten version right before I turned bolded words into wikilnks or double quoted terms. I think I am going to give up on #2, and just focus on good prose. In the end, LLMs will be able to summarize in engineering formats for people who care seeing them that way. Fred Hsu (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
I have no need for horror so I probably won't · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:20, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I removed most double quotes that do not serve as "defining terms". Thanks for prodding. Long live GenAI, for its ability to summarize and contrast ideas from proses on demand, so we can just concentrate on writing proses. Fred Hsu (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
There seem to be a large number of "quotes" of this type for no obvious reason. I suggest you remove those which do not serve any useful purpose. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Yeah. I am going to fold and reduce double quotes. Same as above ^^^. Thanks :) Fred Hsu (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Is wizard skating a common noun? Capitalisation is inconsistent. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:14, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Wizard skating and Flow skating are upcoming nouns. It's not clear when they cross that boundary. The inline skating population is a mere shadow today compared to the heydays. Will address. Fred Hsu (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Consistency of capitalisation is my aim here If it is later decided that it should be the other way it can be changed accordingly. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:18, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I was able to find what a foot stand is and added a note, but still cant work out what makes an axle dual purpose as the linked page also doesn't explain. I assume one purpose is to support the wheel, but what is the other purpose? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Now that you've shown me the visible anchor, I will create anchors for those and link to the right section/phrase/andhor directly. In fact, I can use this for a few things on the main article itself, including "axle" and "spacer" which are not currently subsections. Cheers. Fred Hsu (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, to answer your question: an dual-purpose axle acts as an axle for the inner race of bearings, and also as a bolt with a threaded end. That's expanded on the history child article that I linked to, in the Precursors section. Fred Hsu (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
That was one of my guesses, but it is better not to need to guess. I did not see that in the linked article · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
I meant this:
gave each wheel axle dual purposes: 1) interlocking with the inner race of double ball bearings, as an axle, and 2) being threaded into one sidewall of the wheel frame, as a bolt.
Fred Hsu (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
So would a single purpose axle not screw into the frame? Not clamp the sides of the frame together? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes, as you described. Here is an example of such dual-purpose axle bolt. But it's hard to see it in action without cutting a frame in half. All "Endless" frame pictures used in the article use such axles. Here is an anti-example where you need the equivalent of a nut and a bold, or this.

Honestly, this article simply needs more sections that focus on the 'axle'. Same with 'spacer'. Fred Hsu (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Adjustable wheel rockering is also not explained at the linked page/section that I could find. I think I can guess what it means - making the radius of the rocker line tangent to the wheels adjustable, but no mention of how that is done, and while I can come up with various possible mechanisms, the real one may have been simpler, more elegant, or more robust and I am interested in what it actually was.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Were you looking at the right History child article? Search for Gordon. It's in the Precursor section I currently link (but I will eventually replace with a visible anchor):
In this design, wheel axles served a second purpose - that of securing overlapping segments through specific axle holes. This allowed the frame to adjust to various shoes and sizes. In addition, the front wheel and the rear wheel could be placed higher than the middle two, to create various rockered wheel setups for better turning.
Fred Hsu (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
I did not see that. The link should go to the information as directly as possible or the reader may think it is a mistake and give up on it. It does not help to have to search when you don't know what search string to use. Anchors can help when there is no suitable section header. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I have added a redlink for composition wheels, as I don't know where to link it to. It is not a problem to have some redlinks to show what still needs to be done somewhere else. You may know of an article or section for a redirect, otherwise it can just wait until someone gets around to it. I am interested to know how the clay is used in the composition. Is it a filler in some flexible binder? Is it fired to form a ceramic matrix? My understanding of clay does not mesh with use as an unfired binder, which I would expect to crunble, and if fired I would expect it to be hard and possibly brittle. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
That's the right choice. Some other things you flagged earlier should probably receive the same treatment - some of them now redirection to a related section, but that's unclear to a casual reader, as you pointed out. I'll continue to refine, in a week. Fred Hsu (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
I have given a pass on item 3B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style) It does go into a lot of detail, and it is probably possible to reduce some of it by linking out to other articles or sections, some of which may already exist, but I don't think any of the detail is inappropriate. How necessary some of it is is open to debate, and here I will defer to the knowledge and experience of those who wrote the article. I did not see anything that I thought should be removed, and have requested more detail in a few cases for clarification. The article is long and not many will read it through. It is moderately technical, but not excessively so, and most subject specific terminology is handled adequately for a reader with a reasonable technical background. It is not perfect, but it is good, which is good enough. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:19, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance. I think as I continue to refine this article, it will grow more sections. But at the same time, more details will be moved into child articles that it already has. However, before that happens, I'll revise child articles to bring up their quality, before moving better-written summaries from the main into them. Cheers. Fred Hsu (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
I have given a pass on the source check for verifiability, as all those sources I looked up appeared to support the content associated with them. I didn't count, but would guess between 5 and 10% sample size, which is quite a few considering the number cited. That finalises the review and I am happy to give a pass for GA. My congratulations to the main author/nominator on a job well done so far, as I fully expect it will be improved further over time. I found the topic surprisingly interesting for a non-skater. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Review report

Discussion

Related Articles