The structure should be rethought. The mechanics and operations sections are probably more relevant and belong ahead of the history section. And I'm not sure that the applications subsection belongs in the history section. The "Principles of Operation" heading is confusing as currently place and should be removed. Each of the items below it deserves a very brief definition, rather than being a pure list. I suggest the "Classification" heading should be retitled "Variations". Section titles should avoid repeating the title of the article, for example the "engine pollution" section should just be called "pollution". And why is "pollution" part of "Classification"?--
Yannick05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)reply
I've never heard of a proposal for a hydrogen fuelled ICE. Hydrogen fuel usually means fuel cells. That material (under "Fuel and oxidizer types") along with the battery powered electric motors (in the applications section) and other stuff should be removed to a section about competing alternatives. After all this is supposed to be an article about ICE's not about car engines.--
Yannick05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)reply
More balanced coverage would be beneficial. This article is mostly written about cars, and more material about aircraft engines, stationary engines, tool engines, etc. would be beneficial. But since the ICE is best known for propelling cars, a link to the
automobile belongs right in the introduction.--
Yannick05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)reply
There is great potential to expand the pollution section. "Moderately high" is meaningless. Quantities of pollutants, number of engines in operation, estimates of death toll, etc., would be much more valuable.--
Yannick05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)reply
The ICE is a big topic that will eventually require daughter articles to be spun off. It may be helpful to keep that in mind while reorganizing it.--
Yannick05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)reply
The structure should be rethought. The mechanics and operations sections are probably more relevant and belong ahead of the history section. And I'm not sure that the applications subsection belongs in the history section. The "Principles of Operation" heading is confusing as currently place and should be removed. Each of the items below it deserves a very brief definition, rather than being a pure list. I suggest the "Classification" heading should be retitled "Variations". Section titles should avoid repeating the title of the article, for example the "engine pollution" section should just be called "pollution". And why is "pollution" part of "Classification"?--
Yannick05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)reply
I've never heard of a proposal for a hydrogen fuelled ICE. Hydrogen fuel usually means fuel cells. That material (under "Fuel and oxidizer types") along with the battery powered electric motors (in the applications section) and other stuff should be removed to a section about competing alternatives. After all this is supposed to be an article about ICE's not about car engines.--
Yannick05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)reply
More balanced coverage would be beneficial. This article is mostly written about cars, and more material about aircraft engines, stationary engines, tool engines, etc. would be beneficial. But since the ICE is best known for propelling cars, a link to the
automobile belongs right in the introduction.--
Yannick05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)reply
There is great potential to expand the pollution section. "Moderately high" is meaningless. Quantities of pollutants, number of engines in operation, estimates of death toll, etc., would be much more valuable.--
Yannick05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)reply
The ICE is a big topic that will eventually require daughter articles to be spun off. It may be helpful to keep that in mind while reorganizing it.--
Yannick05:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)reply