Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Holden VE Commodore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Holden VE Commodore

former fac

After extensive editing, tweaking and inclusion of additional information I have decided to re-nominate this article for FAC. This current GA article follows all the FA criteria and I feel that the article is worthy of that status. OSX 07:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I did a little cleanup on the article already (gratuitous over-linking of years, odd missing nbsp;'s, etc).

Other reviewers please note: The article is written in Australian English.

My remaining concerns are:

• The first thing that strikes me upon reading this article is that it is unnecessarily wordy. For example, in the intro: Considerable concern and question has also been put forward regarding the absence of air conditioning on the base model. This coupled with the inclusion of a space-saver spare tyre has seen the car criticised over its effectiveness in remote outback regions. - this could mose succinctly say There has been criticism over the base model's lack of air conditioning and (in outback regions) over the use of a space saver tyre....OK my version could use some improvement too - I'm no English major. But in general, try to follow the advice in User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Eliminating redundancy and definitely do the exercises in here and apply what you learn to every sentence of the article.
• Someone is going to criticise you on the number of 'fair use' images (there are four in the article right now) - so I guess that might as well be me. I can see that they have been carefully justified and such - but it is a lot for an FA. Could you really not get a closeup of the car's badge as a free image? Does a CAD diagram of the functional interior really do something that a photo of the actual interior could not achieve? When you look at each of these four photos with that critical eye, I think some of them could easily be replaced. The picture of the artist's rendering and the guy working on the clay model are great though so please don't read my comments as "you must get rid of all fair use images" - that is most definitely not what I'm saying.
• Translation of units into imperial units starts out OK at the top of the article - but fatigue evidently settled in later on so things like the fuel economy figures are only in metric units. American readers have no feel at all for liters-per-100km numbers - they need to see miles-per-US-gallon. Yes, it's a pain - but for an FA, it's a "must have" thing. So go through and provide conversions of ALL of your units.
• The density of wikilinks drops as you go down the article - and I start finding more and more unlinked terms as you read through the article. If nobody else gets there first, I'll try and fix some of them when I have time.
• I would have liked to see some books in the list of references. I understand that this is a fairly recent car and it's quite possible that no books have been written that say much about it yet - but an over-reliance on web-site references is often considered a 'red flag' by FAC reviewers.

SteveBaker 13:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done I have gone over the whole article and removed any cases of redundancy words that I could find, as well as rewording several sentences throughout the article. I have also removed the fair-use image of the transmission CAD rendering, but I feel that the image of the V-Series logo can remain as it is classified under the logo tag. Unit conversions have also been included, although at the expense of style.

One of the most difficult tasks I found was the inclusion of more wikilinks. I am not overly keen on over-linking, nor I am a fan of linking terms multiple times. I have included many more links throughout the article, but I don't see the need for any more. Finally in response to your concern over the lack of book references, I am not aware of any book(s) published about the car. Instead a journal dealing exclusively with the car is cited throughout heavily throughout the article. The journal was also used as the basis for much of the article's content, with other sources being used to back up claims and to provide further information. OSX 06:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed three of my complaints (see strikeouts above) - but there are still fair use images that don't need to be there - and the article is still unnecessarily wordy - so I won't switch to a 'support' right now. Sorry. SteveBaker 15:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Article is very well written, and well referenced. The head image could be better, but I am still in support. Karrmann 23:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support: All of my issues from above seem to have been taken care of. IMHO, this article is now worthy of the teeny-tiny gold star. SteveBaker 14:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Since all the issues have been fixed I will support the article too. OSX 04:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose None of the footnotes identify publication date or author on news sources, although most of them have those. You can find examples of how to correctly expand your footnotes at WP:CITE/ES, or you could consider the cite templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done The references now include information regarding the author and publication date. Although a small number of the references did not contain this information, the majority did. OSX 08:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Striking my object, references fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - 1a. There's a certain looseness of expression that detracts from the authority our readers expect in FAs. A cursory look at just the lead yielded a density of problems that suggests that a thorough copy-edit throughout is required:
  • "With Opel deciding to discontinue the Opel Omega in 2003, Holden had no choice but to go with a clean-sheet approach." The first clause is ungrammatical. Try "Because Opel had decided ..."; "to go with" is too informal for this register. What is a "clean-sheet approach"? We're not writing to experts.
• "Engines and transmissions are for the most part carry-overs from the previous VZ model, with the exception of a new 6-speed automatic transmission offered as an option on selected trim levels." Single-sentence paragraph is a little disjointed in the lead. Would be nice to orient us properly at the start: "The engines and transmissions of the VE are, for the most part, carry-overs ...". Consider spelling out "six", since it's a single-digit number.
• "Prior to the release ..." - won't plain "Before" do?
• "Holden will instead manufacture two generations of Commodores alongside one another" - wouldn't it be less clumsy to say: "Holden will instead manufacture two parallel generations of Commodores"? Tony 23:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done Your suggested changes to the article have now been implemented, as well as a couple of others that I spotted. I will do my best over the coming days to find more examples. OSX 06:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I can see a few errors that need sorted:

• "Fuel economy figures for the base 180 kilowatt (241 hp) variants show a rather small 0.1 L/100 km (2352 mpg U.S.) decrease over the previous generation of Alloytec engines". (!)
• "Build quality and refinement played a substantial role in the development of the VE model. The interior quality, when compared to previous generations has benefited dramatically from this additional emphasis." Given the current FAC fashion for demanding citations for everything, I'd imagine a claim like this, one of the "most contentious" in the article (i.e. Holden haters will deny it's true), should be referenced. A couple of reviews from major magazines which mention the improvement is all that's needed.
• "Smaller panel gaps are just some of the ways that Holden have developed the VE to pitch it against the European competitors." Smaller panel gaps are just one of the ways.
• "Bosch Electronic Stability Program (ESP®) 8.0 system" Argh. Kill that little registered trademark sign please, as per WP:MOSTM. --DeLarge 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done All of these issues have now been resolved. OSX 21:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not done. The most important point is the first one, where there's a blatant arithmetic error of gigantic proportions. I presume you used some kind of automated script to do the calculation and didn't copyedit afterwards? I've put it in bold text.

Looking more closely at the article (last night's comments were after a cursory look), I can see other issues, mostly to do with criteria 1...

• "History of development" starts with the laying down of a clean sheet design, and in the first paragraph repeats what the lead has mentioned, that the car is Holden's first "all-new" Commodore. So far so good. But then the second paragraph suddenly switches back to before the decision. Should they develop a new car or use an existing GM platform? We already know, you just told us what they decided.
• The last paragraph of this section, which started in 2000, describes how by 2003 Holden were working on quality issues like panel gaps. But then we go to "Design", which jumps back to 1999, and again brings up the "are we doing an all-new car" dilemma for a third time. And then in the next section, "Innovations", we're back to describing the panel gaps all over again. i think these two sections need rewritten, and possibly re-ordered.
• The description of the car as "all-new", which is a common theme in the article, conflicts with the lead's comment that the engines/transmissions (which aren't even of Australian origin) are carryovers. This might be a language issue, though; I don't know what "all-new" means down under.
• "The baseline Omega is priced from AU$34,490, a mere AU$800 over its predecessor’s entry-level equivalent." $800 is a 2.3% increase, more than the Australian inflation rate. I've seen cars introduced which were cheaper than their predecessors (e.g. the latest Honda Civic, in the UK at least), so "mere" seems a bit of a subjective call. --DeLarge 16:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have done a thorough copyedit of the entire article fixing up the errors you have pointed out. Firstly some of the unit conversion websites say that 0.1 L/100 km ≈ 2352 mpg, while other say that it ≈ 23.52 mpg. I still have my doubts over the accuracy of this, but of the five different conversion methods used; all gave one of those two results. So if someone else could help me out in that regard that would be great.

I have also reorganised the structure of the History of development, Design and Innovations sections so the contents appear in chronological order. There is one exception to this being under the Design heading where it jumps back to 1999, but the content clearly belongs under that section rather than History of development.

The term all-new has appeared in many publications regarding the vehicle, despite the fact that the engines/transmissions are mainly carryovers. I have removed the word in one situation in the article but I am unsure about the two remaining occurrences. This may be just a language issue.

The section regarding the Commodore Omega has also been combined into one, and at the same time eliminating the price of the vehicle. Since starting price for the car is already mentioned in the begging of the article I decided that there is no need to repeat it twice. OSX 10:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's nice to put these big green ticks and "Done" all over the place, but I still find the prose subprofessional in most places, whereas you've just treated the specific instances I raised above. Here are problems from a sample paragraph I've taken at random from the middle of the article:
  • "... limit the room needed to absorb the energy in the event of an accident. Negotiation between the departments eventually resulted in moving some of the engine components, such as the battery into the boot freeing up valuable front-end space."—spot the triple redunancy. Which "departments" are these? (No prior mention.) The phrasal structure is awkward and needs, at the least, more commas; perhaps "resulted in the moving of some of the engine components—such as the battery—into the boot, thus freeing up valuable front-end space." You can probably remove "eventually".
  • " but the decision to introduce the engine earlier gave Holden a chance to iron out any faults and issues that may arise with the new engine"—Isn't this in the past? "may have arisen"? "Resolve" more fitting than "iron out" in this register. Remove "any".
  • "This decision proved successful, with the new Commodore receiving an updated version of the engine giving 5–7 kilowatts (7–9 hp) more power,...". A successful decision is not quite idiomatic/logical. The decision led to success; perhaps the decision was wise or fortuitious or correct. "With" is a poor connector and involves poor grammar here (strictly, "the new Commodore's receiving", which is a little outdated, so reword the whole clause). Comma after "giving" would ease the readers' task.
  • Here's a "with" connector again: "Another issue of contention was engine packaging, with Holden's designers wanting the engine positioned well behind the front axle to create short overhangs and an overall sportier appearance." Why not simplify: "Another contentious issue was engine packaging: Holden's designers wanted the engine positioned well behind the front axle to create short overhangs and an overall sportier appearance....".

If all other issues have been resolved, you might tackle 1a by asking the League of Copyeditors to run over the whole text. It's not there yet, and unfamiliar, fresh eyes are needed. Tony 23:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)