Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ford Taurus/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Ford Taurus

I'm nominating this artlcle again. The first time around, it got shot down. it has been vastly improved since then, and now I feel that it is ready for feature-hood. --Karrmann

  • Support. --Gmaxwell 15:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with Karrman, this is a great article. --Chaos Reaver 17:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The prose is a bit rough in spots, but overall, a very good article. RyanGerbil10 19:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Good work. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Lots and lots of infoboxes. Are they really all necessary? They make the article look very cluttered and unclean. Would it be possible to turn all but the main infobox into text? —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 18 March 2006 @ 00:13 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't think so, all models seem to have differing specs. What is the general guideline overit for these kind of articles? Circeus 00:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This article needs a massive copyedit for glaring Capitalization, speeling, and, grammar, errors. — Scm83x hook 'em 01:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Been copyedited. --Karrmann
  • strong oppose + commment. I don't think the article meets current FA standards (the ideal one), and here are some thoughts:
A. The prose is choppy and atrocious at times, and the article contains numerous spelling and grammar errors. In the design section, the word "they" refers to both the designers and other things, such as import models (the second sentence is especially terrible). There're ways to make this clear. Examples just in the first section:
1. Ford is a company, but is referred to as "they" many times. Bad grammar.
2. What are the "minor touch" here and there. This doesn't read professional at all.
3. Capitalization of adjective inside parantheses, wrong grammar. ex. "A"lmost.
4. Don't describe a build of car as "atrocious." It's not proper language for an article. Give specific reasons and description of the car to show your point would be better.
5. Why British spelling on American car language (ex. realising)? Not consistent with rest of articles at all.
6. This article needs heavy grammar checks, as there are too many puntuation, spelling, and syntax errors. Sentences don't follow a logic order thoughout the article. An FA should have none of those as a prerequisite.
B. Insufficient emphasis on design and production of the vehicle.
1. Lack of any significant engineering information regarding the article. They were more aerodynamic, or aesthetic purposes only?
2. After oil crisis, the American manufacturers sought "technologies." This is one of the worst sentences in the article. What technologies, oil crisis and aerodynamics, do what? To reduce drag? No explanations offered, and the sentence is totally out of place.
3. It's a car, where's information about gas mileage ratio?
4. Why is torque a welcoming addition for heavier wagons? We know torque in physics or in propeller crafts, but what's torque in a car?
5. Why is cooling problem thought to be at fault in 3.8?
C. The article is more or less a product or consumer guide.
1. Besides first section, all other sections are product description, and read alike, with the only difference being model make. What's the point, you could have just provided a link to other websites. And one of the website is a Taurus "Encyclopedia."
2. These sections read amateurish: Wow, this car has airconditioning, X model engine, blah blah blah. It takes lots of space to add these to the article, and are not put into context.
3. Why are some features in some model but not in others? Ford must have made some rationale to divide Taurus into many sub-classes, but the article does not provide reasons behind these decisions.
4. Overall these sections are like direct copy from consumer brochures, and it's not good when an article under consideration for FA has ONLY those facts.
5. Export model section is pretty insufficient, only cursory mentions of some weightless facts. Inability to expand Taurus to outside must be displeasing to Ford, any information?
Overall I don't think this article is ready. You can argue about the content, but at least the grammar of the article is very sub-par. The article contains more insufficiencies than the ones I listed, but those should give you some idea about the quality of the article. Anyways, feel free to bloviate. Temporary account 01:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, it had some pretty glaring errors, like spelling "Ford" as "for" a few times leading to very confusing sentences, and pretty much a grammar or spelling error error in every sentence on average. I'm hardly a great copy editor but I've made a ton of fixes in the first section so far... I'm sure there are a lot left. --W.marsh 01:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Writing not good enough; there's even a prominent typo at the top of the first section. POV as currently worded in a few places (e.g., 'atrocious'); that's not encyclopedic language. Tony 01:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Fixed (for the most part, I hope). —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I noticed the same issues as others have pointed out. Also has some issues with weasel words (like "many people argue"), and several unreferenced POV claims (I added a citation request to one of them). A good article certainly, but still needs some work... I've done a bit myself at least. --W.marsh 01:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for now, per W.marsh and Temporary account. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose As far as "brilliant prose" goes, it's lacking. As far as an interesting read, it's lacking. What's the impact of the Ford Taurus on the world? There's so much more the article could tell us. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 03:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

comment : for such a common object,there must be better pictures than some of those.--Technosphere83 11:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Object The article is more narrative than encyclopedic. An example; the first paragraph of "Introduction and competition" needs a complete copyedit. "Ford was in a free fall tailspin. Their build quality was atrocious, and their sales were plummeting" feels opinionated. "Ford needed something, and they needed something fast" is POV and narrative. "They called in Tempo designer Jack Telnak, to create a car that would one-up Chrysler and General Motors while allowing the United States to finally be able to keep up with the imports from Japan and Europe" is very wordy. Similar opinions and wordiness appear in most of the later paragraphs. --Ataricodfish 21:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)