Talk:Talbot Tagora

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star Talbot Tagora is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy Talbot Tagora appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 30, 2006.
Peer review Talbot Tagora has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Portal:Cars selected articles Talbot Tagora is a selected article in Portal:Cars.

Contents

[edit] Peer reviews by members of Wikiproject Automobiles

Seems mostly OK - I've seen a lot worse in terms of the quality of the writing and it's a good basis to start with. However, there's a few issues which I think would stop it getting GA status, in descending order of importance:
  1. You have links in your paragraph headings, something specifically frowned upon in Wp:mos#Headings.
  2. I think the opening paragraph above the contents box is too wordy. A shorter summarisation should do, since most of the info currently there could better be contained in the main body of the article, especially "developed by Chrysler Europe, but produced by PSA and marketed under the Talbot marque after PSA took over Chrysler's European operations", which deserves to be in the 'Development' section.
  3. Your table of sales figures is very messy, and I think should possibly be scrapped. The problem looks to be that there's 2-3 sources which are in conflict with each other. In that case, I'd say its possible all of them could be wrong. Better to just have a paragraph with approximate sales figures?
  4. In 'Why it failed', the opening sentence suffers too much alliteration ("compared to contemporary competitors"), and the word 'contemporary' is used twice in that fairly short paragraph, which is jumping out at me as I read it. I took the liberty of correcting a minor typo too.
  5. On a personal level, whenever I have sub-headings I like to give a title to all the paragraphs, whereas in sections 1 & 5, your opening paragrpah is sort of untitled. I don't know what the Wiki consensus is on this, though.
Hope this helps. I haven't edited anything except the typo, though; I'm in work just now, so don't have time to do much more than read it. -- DeLarge 10:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! This is very helpful to me given that it's coming from a native speaker who is obviously fond his language! Let me refer to some specific issues:
1. I know, this looks absolutely terrible, but then does anybody know a good solution for that? Some sections are written in their entirety based on two or three sources listed (with occassional bits of info coming from other sources, which are then referenced directly in the text), and I would like the reference notes to indicate that properly.
2. I perceive the "above TOC" section in longer articles as an "executive summary", that can be used as a standalone sufficient equivalent of the entire article (I think of it as similar to the opening section of the Mini article, and it is an FA). What is being said in this section is of course also repeated (and expanded) in appropriate sections of the article. Given the length of the article, I perceived this as an appropriate length of the summary, pointing out what is really important about the car. I will gladly hear opinions on that from other users too, as well as any propositions as to how to phrase this section better.
3. I honestly have enough of trying to figure out the production stats. If anybody can please edit it into something digestible, I would be most grateful!
4. Thanks for drawing my attention to the "cococo" - it was not actually necessary, so I removed it. I hope the paragraph is now more acceptable. How estabilished went unnoticed through MS Word spellchecker is another Microsoft mystery.
5. I have given the first paragraph in the last section a provisional title, but I really don't feel that well with that, it's like "all kinds of everything". The design part somehow grew bigger, so I have decided to give it its own subsection. As concerns the development section, I think of it as big enough to have its own "introductory paragraph", and that's what there is.
Now I guess I have rebutted your comments rather than humbly accept them and displayed my laziness at large. I guess I am now suffering from "editor fatigue"... Again, thanks a lot, and I will appreciate more of such reviews, as well as bold and substantiated edits! Bravada, talk - 11:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Hehe, OK, let's look through my points again...

1. You have links in your paragraph headings, etc.
Still the biggest issue. I had the same problem myself when writing the Mitsubishi Motors Corporation article, whose many sections were cobbled together from 2-3 basic sources. What I chose to do was to list those sources separately from the specific numbered citations - see here for what I mean. Would that work for you? Also, I just noticed (and this is being really picky): WP:Footnotes#How to use recommends not placing the references in the middle of the sentence or before the period. I took the liberty of editing the article to fix this.
2. I think the opening paragraph above the contents box is too wordy, etc.
I'll withdraw this. Established FAs certainly over-rule my personal stylistic opinions.
3. Your table of sales figures is very messy, etc.
The ultimate problem is multiple conflicting sources. Unless they site their sources, I'd question their value (especially [4], which is an AOL Hometown site). Since you mentioned approx 20,000 sales in the previous paragraph, I'd ditch the whole table.
4. In 'Why it failed', the opening sentence suffers too much alliteration, etc.
Sorted.
5. On a personal level, whenever I have sub-headings I like to give a title to all the paragraphs, etc.
Section 5 is sorted. For section 1, I'd maybe move "Design" to the top, and put the opening paragraph of Development underneath it (making "Design" a two paragraph section)?

I'll continue to not edit the article, and let you decide for yourself if you want to implement the changes. Regards, -- DeLarge 21:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a whole lot again! As neither source seems to be both complete AND trustworthy, I have done away with the table - I now see this was just an outburst of my obsession with detail. As concerns citations, I want to make it clear what comes from where, so I just moved them to the end of paragraphs (except for the ones referring to specific bits of info - thanks for sorting them out). As concerns the first section, I'll wait for some other opinions, as I am quite attached to it as it is :D Bravada, talk - 22:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dan's edits

Dan, I understand you did all that as a revenge for me not being helpful with your GMI request ;p More seriously - thanks a lot for your reviewing and helping improve this article! I appreciate your time and effort a lot!

OK, here is why I reverted those edits:

  1. CX and 605 aren't really legitiamte successors - the Tagora had no successor as such, it was simply cancelled and the brand killed altogether. See the AMC Matador Progeny debate for more on similar topics.
  2. Chrysler Sunbeam was built in Linwood, and the 180/2 litre in Spain, so this was not so unusual for a Chrysler-branded Chrysler Europe vehicle not to be built in Ryton.
  3. I guess this is not the place to discuss 180's fortunes (the 180 article is), besides I wouldn't say the energy crisis was the main reason why it flopped - it was a really mediocre entry aimed at the past, not contemporary generation of vehicles. There are more reason at rootes-chrysler.co.uk too.
  4. The Solara comment is an overinterpretation of what is being said @ rootes-chrysler. Reviewers COMPARED the car to Tagora as an illustration of haw charmless an entry it was, but I wouldn't say the similarity was a REASON for the car's lack of success - the charmlessness was.
  5. Last but not least, they corrupted the reference system, and reverting was just the easiest remedy :D

Excuse me for simply reverting all that, but I really believe these edits weren't going in the right direction. I think this article might still be expanded by some bit or two of info should somebody find additional sources, but as of now what I believe is the most important is proper copyediting - I am not a native English speaker and my style leaves a lot to be desired, so some sections might use a brushup or even rewrite, and this is what I was hoping for.

Once again, thanks a lot and I would be most grateful if I could enjoy your cooperation further!

Regards, Bravada, talk - 12:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your English is very eloquent, and one would never guess that it's not your first language! ;)
On the small point about the comparisson between Tagora and Solara — I'm going to have a dig around in old literature, because I really hope we can find some references for that. I clearly remember that it was very much what people thought at the time. A relative of mine considered a Tagora and I'm sure actually expressed the visual similarities to the Solara as the best reason to avoid it. Sure, it was also charmless per se, but it might have gotten away with that if there hadn't been an obvious down-market car to compare it with. (Incidentally, we ended up with a Rover SD1 which we all loved!) – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 12:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation spot check

As part of this project, I checked a few random inline citations from this article. The results were:

  1. Footnote 2 (b): "Over the course of development, the C9 also lost its vertical taillights in favour of more "fashionable" (at that time) horizontal ones."
    • Problem. This footnote, and all other footnotes to this site, link to a table of contents page. Please link to the individual pages with the relevant information for each note.
  2. Footnote 1 (i): "It was also comparable to Renault 20/30 and Ford Granada pricing."
    • Problem. Page numbers and publication data needed.
  3. Footnote 3 (e): "The Tagora was also launched under the Talbot brand, which was relatively unestablished in the contemporary marketplace and had a questionable pedigree - not a very favourable trait in the executive class, ruled by well-known nameplates like Ford Granada."
    • Checks out. From site: "Taken together with the poor reception the revived Talbot marque enjoyed, it was not surprising that the Tagora was a sales failure."
  4. Footnote 4 (b): "The base engine was a version of the older Simca 2-litre with increased displacement, also featured in the Matra Murena, not related to either Chrysler US or PSA 2.2-litres."
    • Problem. From site:"...although the 2.2 engine was to be Chrysler's rather than the identical-displacement Peugeot/Citroen motor"
      • No mention of Matra Murena, or of the fact that the engine was descended from the Simca engine. Also, an AOL home page does not count as a reliable source.
  5. Footnote 5 (b): 'The V6 model, which was actually badged 2.6, came in the top SX trim level, loaded with extras, but surprisingly not available with automatic transmission."
    • Problem. Another link to a table of contents page (sort of; it's a gallery of scan images that you can click to read). Please link to specific pages containing the information.

A fair amount of work needs to be done getting these into shape. --RobthTalk 19:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"the executive class, ruled by well-known nameplates like Ford Granada." Hmmm, does anybody really associated "executive class" with "Ford Granada"?Kar98 17:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Temporaly ambigious grammar aside, the Granada was an executive car in no lesser way than the Tagora. As you might come from the other side of the Atlantic, do acquaint yourself with the executive car article to find out what the "executive class" means here. Do also place other suggestions for changes on the talk page, as the page gets constantly vandalized and you might be editing a corrupt version, which is easier to revert altogether. Bravada, talk - 17:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Which is why I posted this remark in form of a question, on the talk page, rather than editing the article. All I changed there was some minor spelling. :-) Kar98 01:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some issues regarding copyediting

I would like to thank all the users who devoted the time to copyedit this article and enhance the style of prose. There are a few issues, though, that got "lost in translation" and therefore I will try to modify the article once again so that the factual accuracy is maintained:

  • The Alpine and Horizon cannot be referred to as Talbots when speaking about their development, as the Talbot marque was only applied to them at the end of their production cycles. As they wore different marques in different markets in different periods, I believe it would be most approporiate to refer to them by model names only. Moreover, contrary to the Simca model names, the Alpine continued unchanged through the production cycle, and is also less amibgious then Simca's numbers, IMHO.
  • The press presentation was held in Marocco, but to the members of European press, and not Maroccan press only obviously. I hope that the current wording will not leave much doubt as to that.
  • It has little to do with factual accuracy actually, but I am not the enthusiast of the semicolon in general, so a certain semicolon in the body of the article was just removed and a sentence split in two for, I believe, better flow :D
  • Peugeot Société Anonyme is actually the original name of the company that dates back to the 19th century, IIRC, so we can't say that it was formed in the 1970s. What I meant was the PSA Group, legally perhaps it was still PSA who was the buyer, but I wanted to emphasize what the buying entity actually was and how it was created.
  • I did not want to discuss the Tagora's pricing in Germany alone, which would be pretty irrelevant, I chose German market pricing because Germany was perhaps the most representative of European automotive markets, and I also have access to firm and comparable data on it. After some deliberation, I have decided to put Germany in brackets, so that it would indicate that the paragraph is not to discuss pricing in Germany, but pricing in general.
  • Production went down from about 15,000 in 1981 to less than 3,000 in 1982 and only about 1,500 in 1983 - I believe this is a very steep decline, and it has to be emphasized in some way. I appreciate the effort to streamline the prose in this section, so I just added one adjective - if somebody has a better idea how to express that, I would be grateful...
  • Additional information on the PRV engine was moved to the Engines section. As concerns whether the engine was a reason of Tagora's failure, it can only be a reason of the SX's poor sales, and I guess it would need to be better documented that THIS was the exact reason (I believe there were many more, starting with those listed as primary reasons for Tagora's failure in general). Please also note that the assessment of the PRV against competitors needs referencing too, and I don't think it's necessary here.
  • The sources I quote literally claim that the Tagora was not only awkward-looking, but also bland. I have rephrased the respective sentence to reflect that.
  • The following sentence constains what looks like questioning as to the status of the Tagora as an executive vehicle. Well, it is stated in the infobox that it belonged to this class, and it did both size-wise and in terms of marketing, so this statement seems rather POV, and I believe it is not necessary.

I am not a native English speaker as you can see, and I have done this edit at dawn after a sleepless night, as this was the only time that I could devote to it, but I still feel that the style does not really reflect what it should in some places. I believe it would be good if some native speaker (who did not edit the article before) could go through it again with regard to that. Bravada, talk - 03:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry if I lost some of your intent in a few places. As to your last comment, the quotation marks weren't to question the Tagora's status as executive class, but to highlight how "plain plastic dashboard" and "executive class" are in opposition. It's too bad to hear from you and the fellow on your talk page that the copy is still not good enough. Outriggr 01:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry that you feel that way - it was not my intention to downplay the importance or quality of your copyedit. It is just that my English knowledge is far too limited to be able to truly appraise that, as, for example, this is the first instance on which I have ever came accross the verb "to opine". Therefore, I do not feel that I can appraise the style now, and whether it expresses the ideas in the article appropriately. I have made some minor corrections, as apparently my English was poor enough to cause some misunderstandings. The fact that I made them also requires attention from a native speaker with a good command of literary language.
So, to cut the long story short, it's not you, it's me :D I have no problems with the article as is, I will ask Robth what his reservations are more specifically. Bravada, talk - 10:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
No worries. I expect Robth is a more exacting/knowledgable editor than I am, but I can't see that the current status of the article's prose in itself would prevent FA status. And I'll see you on your talk page. :) Outriggr 22:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Following Bravada's request for more people to be involved, I'm weighing in as another native speaker of English, to help with the copyedit. I sat in a café this afternoon with the article printed out – a sure way to spot things one otherwise misses – and have lots of minor changes to make which I hope should make the article (even more) pleasant to read, and remove certain ambiguities. I'll get around to typing in these changes a.s.a.p. – but perhaps not tonight ;) Since it appears that there's some sensitivity with these changes, I'm minded to put the new page up as a sub-page and seek approval before blending the changes into the "live" article. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 23:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
No sensitivity on my part - feel free to edit the article directly. Outriggr 23:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh alright then ;-) – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 23:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Existence of model

"The Talbot Tagora is a large executive saloon car which was developed by Chrysler Europe and produced by Peugeot Société Anonyme (PSA)."

I know the Tagora is pretty rare now, but some do still exist. It's for this reason that I've included changing "was" to "is" in my copyedit. I looked around and saw that many (though not all) articles for out-of-production cars use "was". Nevertheless, I feel that's inappropriate. We're not implying that the model is still in production – the infobox make production dates clear. Normally, so would the next sentence, which would say "was produced by...". Unfortunately in this case we have "was developed... and produced" which makes it less clear. Nevertheless, I feel saying that it "was" a car implies that it no longer exists, as one might say of a concept car or prototype which has been destroyed. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 11:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your copyediting Kieran! You are obviously right in what you said and I believe this article is now much more digestible and enjoyable for the reader (not because of the is/was thing but all the other edits obviously :D). Why it did not occur to me that a lot of stuff could be so much better phrased? And I still can't believe I have overlooked the "Moroccan press" :D :D :D OK, let's rejoice now! Bravada, talk - 12:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

I have just received anther email from the generous Mr. Stan Orand, where he sent some really nice photos of the Tagora DT, including a very handy front 3/4s! Unfortunately, it was affected by "negative lighting", so I tried to touch it up with PhotoShop. Unfortunately, my photoshopping skills, as well as my manual abilities (momentairly) are limited, so the effect is quite underwhelming. Please let me know whether this is any improvement over the previous photo (see page history), and whether there is some merciful PhotoShopper among the viewers of this article who could do a better job with those photos - I will send them the originals by email. Thanks. Bravada, talk - 17:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not truely important, but upload the originals instead. Wikipedia is an anarchy where anyone who does a better job than the guy who did the job before gets the job until someone else is better. It isn't governed by anyone, but people listen to that person without direction. If you upload the photos, someone else will fix them sooner or later.--80.209.54.2 11:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I can send the originals to anyone who would wish to have a go at them. The current photo looks awful, but the original would have been even worse, so for the sake of giving the readers an even remote idea of how the car looks like, I think it is better to leave it like it is. Besides, there is also a profile shot from Mr. Orand in the Commons, do you believe including it in the article would make sense? Bravada, talk - 11:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

Congratulations on making FA! You guys did some good work here - I know how hard it is to push through all the layers of red tape to get the coveted gold star. Now - let's get another car up on the front page! SteveBaker 20:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks on behalf of all of use here (which means that I am trying to thank you on behalf of you actually :D) OK, which one now? And how about FA'ing a car BRAND or company? Bravada, talk - 20:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
If you are looking for a new challenge - how about trying to get an article about some car part into FA? "Supercharger", "Otto cycle" or "Tire" for example. (Actually, Tire is already pretty close - with proper referencing I think it's almost there). SteveBaker 23:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd love to help, but I actually barely know why does the car actually move of its own :( Bravada, talk - 00:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Fine but if you really want to go to front page you have to ask for it and propose a nice front page box ... Hektor 15:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've got a really interesting* and worthy project for us. Have a look at the discussion on Talk:Fiat 125 and see what you think. In short, I think it'd be interesting to have some history of the relationship between Fiat (and to a lesser extent other manufacturers) and the "Eastern Block" – so many companies rebuilt some astonishingly bland Western cars for a very long time.

* If you like that sort of thing! – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 11:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The idea seems OK to me, especially given that I have spent some quality time aboard 125p's as a kid, driven by my mother at speeds that proved why the car was a worthy contender in the Monte Carlo.
But what do you mean specifically? Do you want to write/improve a section of the Fiat article dealing with Eastern-bloc cooperation, or perhaps take on an article on VAZ, Crvena Zastava or FSO, or maybe a specific model, like the Zastava 101 or Zhiguli expanding them with less "export market-centric" view?
PS. Let me also make one thing clear - the Fiat-based Eastern-bloc cars were anything but astonishingly bland, they were based on some of the best-styled vehicles of their era, and retained quite a lot of their appeal. If you want astonishingly bland, check out our dear Rootes Group produce (e.g. Avenger and Chrysler 180, the cars whose shape can only be referred to as "nondescript").
Hehehe, I love the Avenger! ;)
But to clarify what I meant; yes, the Fiat article itself certainly could do with improvement. And I'm very aware that there's a danger of moving from encyclopædia to essay here; but I think that there's enough factual material to make an explanation of some of the collaborations worth including in Wikipedia. Perhaps it would end up being a "list of..." article though, which I wouldn't really be a fan of. How about beginning with the 125 article, and seeing where it leads us? – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 12:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have to confess I am guilty of the "export market-centric" Zastava 101 (I called it Zastava Skala to cover the whole 128-related family) page. The problem is generally about finding decent information in English regarding the domestic market. One of these days I will have to learn Serbo-Croatian I guess. If you two want to have a look at it, please feel welcome to do so. I have some old UK flyers and brochures if I manage to find them, but again the same problem: These are related to the export market... E Asterion u talking to me? 20:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Have you got some stuff in the original language that might be helpful? I might be able to make a teeny bit of sense out of stuff written in Serbian Cyrillic. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 20:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I have got an owner's handbook somewhere. I will try to find this and dig out some web pages in Serbian regarding history of the car. E Asterion u talking to me? 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagora = Solara?

I am not sure but by the look of the picture, the Tagora was sold in Spain as Talbot Solara (sometimes with Chrysler badge on). E Asterion u talking to me? 00:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Talbot Solara was a different model, it was a sedan based on the Alpine/1510 - see Simca 1307 for details, or www.rootes-chrysler.co.uk for more info on this series. But yup, it and Solara were somewhat similar on the outside, thi issue ahs been raised here before. Good day, Bravada, talk - 07:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I see what you mean. E Asterion u talking to me? 19:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wow...

that is one boring article. Jawed 07:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this insightful and helpful comment. What featured article did you write, so that we could compare? Bravada, talk - 10:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a pretty accurate comment, and it is irrelevant as to whether Jawed has ever edited Wikipedia. The article is carefully written and comprehensive, but is nevertheless boring and trivial. Hardly a good showcase article for the encyclopaedia. zoney ♣ talk 11:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
First I hear that an encyclopedic article should be judged on whether it is a fascinating reader. Would you like to tell me that some of the past FAs, such as Sequence alignment, are any better in this respect? Or, to take one of your contributions, Transport in Ireland? An encyclopedic article is to be factually accurate and informative, if you want a good reader, go get some short stories! I believe it is actually on the border line concerning the inclusion of some factoids.
Nevertheless, a number of WP users found it worthy of the FA status, and the FA director of featuring it on the front page. I have actually heard from users who said it was really interesting for them to read. I guess it depends on whether you find the topic interesting or not. An upcoming front-page FA is Hilary Putnam, which is allegedly one of the best biographical articles on WP ever, passing the FA nomination at 22/0. Still, I won't probably even attempt reading it, as the subject is of little interest to me. Bravada, talk - 11:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I consider it unlikely that your example of Transport in Ireland could be a featured article. It would need to cover a lot to be comprehensive enough, while at the same time the article is a parent topic, and much of the content would need to be organised hierarchically in sub-articles. This isn't something Wikipedia handles well, and was the subject of my criticism of yesterday's article. Furthermore, content on Wikipedia is generally speaking subject to how many Wikipedians there are who are interested in the topic - Transport in Ireland is unlikely to have enough contributors (although the possibility is there of the project "getting lucky" and having a few dedicated contributors - but this is the exception rather than the rule).
Feel free to ignore my comments, but there is a general attitude here that it's unacceptable for people to criticise the work here, just because it's a volunteer effort. What's even worse is the concept that one is somehow not free to offer criticisms if you don't contribute here. I would probably not have said anything here but for the tone of your earlier comment, which I consider unacceptable and quite prevalent among Wikipedians.
Personally, I've been here a long enough time, and I'm rather tired of the same old problems that the project has. I'm complaining only because I'd like to see it become something better. zoney ♣ talk 14:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The Talbot Tagora was far less likely a candidate for a FA, and it somehow got there, because there was one editor interested in developing it and many others joined in along the way. It's all a matter of initiative and persistence. Still, some will always find some articles interesting, and some won't - as Kieran said, it's a matter of personal preferences, we can't do much about that. I was quite upset about the comment that started this discussion, as I have sometimes came accross articles I wasn't interested in, but then I just stopped reading and moved on rather than expressed my lack of interest on the talk page, as this is would be rather irrelevant and quite rude towards the editors who sacrificed their time to create it (regardless of the quality of their work, which is another matter).
That said, I don't feel that bad about Wikipedia and I think you are overgeneralizing the issue. I was trying to point out to Jawed that his remark is rather unconstructive and doesn't help develop the article further anyway. If he is not interested in this topic, why not develop some other articles on topics interesting to him rather than informing other users about his preferences? I believe that constructive feedback is welcome though, and my experience is that it usually meets with favorable replies. This article was actually developed to a big extent thanks to the constructive critique from several experienced editors, which helped make it an FA. What would you change to the article and what are the addressable concerns in your opinion? Bravada, talk - 14:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
"Interesting" is one of the words I find myself removing from articles quite often, in sentences like, "It's particularly interesting that..." – interest is commonly a point of view, and that's not what the encyclopædia is for. The present article is "interesting" only to certain people, sure, and that's just fine. An encyclopædia which only covers topics which any one particular person finds interesting would be merely a "coffee-table book". – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 12:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It matters that we have lacking articles in mainstream topics, while we have detailed articles about a type of car. Considering problems with the former (inherent to the concept of relying merely on what contributors decide to add to Wikipedia), I think we're reasonably unentitled to use the term "encyclopaedia" to describe this project. zoney ♣ talk 14:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't get the "encyclopaedia" part of your comment, but as concerns the first sentence, Wikipedia is a voluntary effort and you cannot make people edit what they do not want to. If you believe it is improper to create and edit articles on cars, you might perhaps stop me from doing so, but this won't make me create or edit articles on the topics you would prefer to edit. I started editing and creating articles as I am one of the many people who come here for information on cars and I found WP lacking in some areas in this respect. I also consider myself moderately knowledgeable in this area compared to others, so do not expect me to edit articles on nuclear physics or 14th century Finnish poetry, as I know little about those topics.
Think about it that way - one day, all the "encyclopedic" topics on WP might finally be appropriately covered and it might happen that the most "important" topic not yet covered would be the Talbot Tagora, and then it would become the utmost priority to make up for this shortcoming. The editors of this article just performed this task beforehand - the development of Wikipedia is quite random and unevenly distributed in time, but it is progressing, and I believe it is no bad thing. If you think a topic is lacking attention of editors, why don't you mobilize people interested in it and knowledgeable about it, both within WP and from the outside (convincing them to join the "editorial team" and further expand the scope of knowledge/interests represented). Bravada, talk - 14:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe it's one bit improper to edit articles about anything at all! I'm an inclusionist. If an article about someone's school is accurate and more information than is appropriate for say, the article of the town in which it is in, then fine.
I nevertheless think your concept of "one day" there'll be good general coverage is flawed - I don't think this is likely without a dedicated full-time editorial team whose job it is to ensure broad coverage of topics in the encyclopaedia. And I think it is one of the defining characteristics of encyclopaedias that they have broad coverage. Wikipedia has a whopping huge amount of articles, on very diverse topics (more so than anywhere else I imagine), but does not have good general basic coverage of core subjects.
My point was merely that having articles like this on the main page, while other more general subjects are lacking, simply highlights Wikipedia's flaws. zoney ♣ talk 17:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)



-- uk registrations-- tagoras were registred in uk from the W -prefix to 1984 B -prefix. tali 30/08/06

ex- coventry city chairman jimmy hill is famously seen exiting his tagora 2.2 tali 30/08/06

[edit] Clarity

The phrase "the Talbot brand, which was relatively unestablished in the marketplace and had a questionable pedigree," seems unclear.

If "established" meant "having a current share of the market" you'd be right. But if "established" meant "having history" you'd be wrong. Talbot produced some memorable cars before it came into Rootes hands, and was given over to badge engineering. I'm not sure what the "questionable pedigree" phrase means. Certainly the Tagora did not represent Talbot well. Would, "the Talbot brand, already tarnished by badge engineering, and with no significant market share", describe the situation any better? Seasalt 11:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think "tarnished" is too "point of view" for our purposes. But you're right; the phrase doesn't consider the original pedigree, dating back to the previous incarnation of Talbot, which the older generation of purchasers would have remembered. I think what the phrase is really trying to say is, "the Talbot brand, which had yet to be properly re-established in the market-place..." – how would that be? – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 11:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/a/l/Talk%7ETalbot_Tagora_50df.html"