Talk:Caterham CSR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Caterham CSR has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Caterham CSR has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	Cars Portal This article is supported by Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of Automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

An entry from Caterham CSR appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 9 December 2006. ...that the Caterham CSR is one of the lightest production cars, but lacks modern safety features, making it unsafe in collisions?

The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Riguy (talk • contribs)

[edit] Lots of vandalism

This article seems to be peppered with small, hard-to-find vandalism that I personally don't have time to get all of. Can someone else look through it and clean it out?

• Thanks for your help. I've looked through and I think it's all gone. Riguy 20:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK issues

Who declared the Caterham CSR dangerous on normal roads, and put it on the Did You Know? section on the Main Page?Ricky540 19:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yea, I suppose that could've been reworded, perhaps to say "unsafe". Oh well... Riguy 20:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Reworded to match. Feel free to report any similar corrections on WP:ERRORS. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I left a message on WP:ERRORS. just to summarize, I don't know if the safety features were designed with racing in mind, but I do know that it lacks safety features because of Caterham and Super Seven tradition (minimalism, add lightness, etc). Please update as necessary, Thanks, Riguy 21:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think the point is being missed here, just because the CSR doesn't have modern saftey features doesn't in any way, make it less dangerous or unsafe on the road, if that was true, you could make a case that most cars made before 1980 are dangerous or unsafe on the road also.--Ricky540 19:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Not much to be done about it now. The DYK I submitted talked about the performance of the car, not the safety. Someone else must've submitted it. Riguy ^talk/_contribs 00:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passed GA

Congrats, it's a Good Article. I do have some slight reservations about the tone of the article, it comes close to the "sounding like an advertisement" argument in places but not enough to keep it out. Good job. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 16:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It's always kind of hard to edit one's own writing and it would be helpful to have an example or two so I can spot the problems more easily and fix them. Feel free to post them either here or in the peer review listed above. Riguy ^talk/_contribs 17:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it's hard to phrase the concerns, primarily because I don't know how they could be redone "more neutrally" without losing what's being said. After a re-read I don't think it's really an issue. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 18:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll read through it as well and see if I can spot anything. Riguy ^talk/_contribs 18:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)