Some images are tagged as PD because they were prepared by a US government employee, but as far as I can see that's not the case. A patent application is prepared by the inventor. However, putting the image in a point counts as publication, so it's not an issue for GA, since they're old enough to be PD anyway. I suggest fixing the tags, but it won't matter for this GAN.
The lead says he invented the streetcar gong "that is used throughout the United States" but the body doesn't say this; it only says it was once in use by most horse-drawn vehicles in NYC.
The lead asserts he invented "safety pin, sewing machine, repeating rifle, and fountain pen": this appears to be too strong a claim. He's the inventor of the safety pin but for the others he is not the person now mainly credited with their invention, as far as I can tell. For the fountain pen his own patent just says "new and useful improvement", not that he is the inventor of the fountain pen.
"Others made millions of dollars from his devices, one in particular was the safety pin." I don't see support in the body for this except for the safety pin. I don't think we can count the paper collar for this, since this is in reference to devices for which he sold the patent.
"he invented fire engines, police stations": I think we need to be more specific. Presumably he invented some improvement or redesign of these, not the entire concept.
"and another was Walter Hunt’s 1849 patent model for the first American safety pin": suggest cutting this; you cover the safety pin in detail further on in the article.
"He also invented the Antipodean Performers suction-cup shoes used by circus performers to ascend up solid side walls and walk upside down across high ceilings": this is sourced to a newspaper that says "a pair of shoes that enabled a circus performer to walk up walls" and the Smithsonian Magazine, which says "ceiling-walking circus device". Neither says the invention was ever used; the newspaper implies it was effective but I think that's not a good enough source to say in the article that they worked as intended. I would rephrase this as "claimed" or something similar.
"It had a characteristic of an eye-pointed needle": does this just mean "It had an eye-pointed needle"? If not I don't understand it. And this paragraph is repetitive; we mention the eye-pointed needle three times, and the fact that it created an interlocking stitch three times.
"The basic design is the same in the twentieth century as when Hunt innovated the device in the nineteenth century and is manufactured inexpensively." Is manufactured inexpensively now? Or it was then?