Talk:RevoPower

Legality and tax status

Perhaps the author should make it clear that this product may well not be legal in some countries, and at the least would change the tax status of the vehicle? I do not know for certain, but I suspect it would be illegal in the UK. --APRCooper 11:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of any good section for legality, especially considering the only info that really exists is "You might need to be over 16 and/or have a license in some areas" on their site. Any statement of legality would be WP:OR --L-- 15:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Written with an advertisng bias

Second and third world countries might recognize this idea as a godsend, but the legality slash tax issue will vary from country to country, according to their karma. More info on this bike is needed. What country is it from? I wish they'd pair up with Giant Bicycle in Taiwan, and introduce a truly revolutionary product that could reduce emissions forever. The pollution from 800 scooters at one traffic light is unbearable. --220.139.213.123 13:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What does that have to do with an advertising bias? I don't want it to be biased anymore than anyone else does, so if you could point out bias, I'd appreciate it. Anyway, it's from the US, I'll clear up the company in the history section. --L-- 15:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleared up in the intro, thanks! --L-- 16:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

your interesting comment here

Could we know what the patent is for - it's certainly not for putting an engine on a bike as that has been done once (or twice) before including in the front wheel see Motorised Bicycle.

this is just a puff for vapourware...

As far as the patents go, I'd assume it's for the way the engine actually works, and the mechanisms involved, of course the company hasn't stated anything, so it would be WP:OR to assume what they're for. As far as claims of vapourware go, that's unsourcable WP:OR, which is unacceptable --L-- 15:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination failed

At present this article is little more than an advertisement for a product which is yet to be released, and there is too much speculation. Many more third party references are needed to support what is being said; the Popular Science "article" is a start but it is very short. Please expand as more hard info (about actual use, sales figures, etc) becomes available and then consider re-submitting... Johnfos 23:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Good article review

I've nominated RevoPower for a GA Review --lucid 05:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

An interesting source

I was looking around, and I found This (PDF), it has some interesting information on it, but I'm not sure if it's a very reliable source, and I'm not really sure I'd know how to work it in. Anyone else care to look over it? --lucid 08:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

John Richards

From that source, one thing that might be worth working on:

Mr. Richards has an extensive background in sales and senior management. He worked
for IBM for twelve years, and was heavily involved in their move into Asia in the 1980’s.
He subsequently built a software business in Australia, which ultimately employed 250
people. In the process he raised in excess of $25 million, with investors including
Goldman Sachs. Having sold that business to News Corporation magnate Rupert
Murdoch, John joined with Bruce Parker to explore new opportunities in starting
businesses. John and Steve founded RevoPower in May of 2003.

Unfortunately, John Richards is probably one of the most generic names imaginable, so sourcing these things might be hard. Still, someone who was heavily involved in IBM, and built was seems to very a substantial software company (Which was sold to Rupert Murdoch, of all people) indicates to me there might be a good degree of notability under WP:BIO, enough for an article to exist --lucid 08:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:GA/R Result

In a 5 to 1 decision, this article has been listed as a GA. There's not much to say about it, since all it means is that most people found it to meet the GA criteria :/. Review archived here: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 29. Homestarmy 14:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:RevoPower/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been listed as a good article in October 2007, and has since been overseen by the cycling project. While I personally don't think it is notable, there have been some newsitems about it that are included in the article. But the quality of the article is not Good; It is rated as C-class, which I think is a better assessment of the quality.

Some examples:

"Steve Katsaros, the creator of the Wheel". I am sure that this Steve did not invent the wheel. Maybe the RevoPower, but this should be phrased differently.

"... have led to speculation that the product is a scam". Maybe, but I am sure that this needs to be sourced to be included in Wikipedia.

"Some speculated there were technical problems with the design". Here too, a source is needed.

Because the company website is no longer online, four of the nine references do not work anymore.

The creator of the article has left Wikipedia, so I can not notify him/her. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(Original Creator:) Thank you. Due to time (the original site, as you mention) and poor contributions since I left the project, it is not the article it once was. I fully agree that the article needs work, and hopefully your reclassification will spur someone on to do it. --lucid 20:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on RevoPower. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070708022333/http://www.popsci.com/popsci/whatsnew/f62a294c1251b010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html to http://www.popsci.com/popsci/whatsnew/f62a294c1251b010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211153844/http://www.iloveebikes.com/articles.html to http://www.iloveebikes.com/articles.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.revopower.com/coloradocompany.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110214171640/http://www.ucdenver.edu/ACADEMICS/COLLEGES/BUSINESS/ABOUT/CENTERS/BARD/BPC/Pages/Winners.aspx to http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/business/about/Centers/bard/bpc/Pages/Winners.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)