Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ford Mustang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Ford Mustang

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles.

It's been 2 years since the article was given FA status. With the introduction of the current S-197 Mustang, and the addition of information and models that was not included in the original FA nod (I have no idea how it got FA status despite not being "Complete"; The 80's section got a boost via two specialty models for example), I think the article has been severely compromised.

My main concern is the S-197 Section. I went in once to remove obvious fancruft in one part, but I have a lingering suspicion that some of the text might be bordering on possible commercialism (or is outright commercial propaganda) but I cannot put my finger on what is fact and what is just a marketing ploy.--293.xx.xxx.xx 10:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, there are no inline citations and the lead is insufficient. Is Image:Mustangunexpected.JPG truly public domain? Pagrashtak 20:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't look at me, i'm more concerned about the content, not the images. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not specifically asking you, I'm listing other concerns about the article. Pagrashtak 19:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is very bad indeed, some sections are badly unwikified and needs cleanup. I would really love this to stay as an FA as it's one of the top cars of all-time but it needs work. I deleted the two not PD images Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• There are a number of problems, the most important being the lack of reference.

1. No references. The 2004 featured version (which I believe was this one based on the talk page) has grown quite a lot. However, the 2004 had two references, and the current version, 3 (with over twice its size) and 5 inline links (which should be transformed into foot notes). The article apparently has no active maintainer (it reached up to 50 external links).
2. There are embedded external links in sections like Current third-party tuner versions, which should have wikilinks instead.
3. The headings don't sound encyclopedic (From sporty car to sports car, The industry reacts, The Mustang grows up).
4. Weasel words, peacock terms (this is because of the lack of references). A search for most returns:
   • it was the most successful product launch in automotive history
   • it was the single most expensive Mustang option
   • the 1967 to 1970 GT-500 are among the most sought-after
   • Though the "'Cuda" would grow into one of the most revered muscle cars of all time
   • with a small "BOSS 429" decal on each front fender, hinted that most powerful Ford V8 of all time
   • It is also worth noting that four of the five years of the Mustang II are on the top-ten list of most-sold Mustangs.
   • The original 1969 and 1970 Mustang Mach 1s were (and remain) some of the most popular Mustangs ever
   • The most powerful factory-produced Mustang ever is the new Shelby GT500.

I am sure there are more things, but as it is now, it is failing 1c (lack of references), 1d (neutrality, due lack of references) and 2b (heading style). -- ReyBrujo 23:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

God, it got FA on THAT?!?! THAT?!?! I'm sorry, but that had to be one of the worst FA nods ever. The references sucked, most of the variants aren't even listed, the article was too "lean" and lacked meat. My Ford Mustang SSP article has more references that that, and info on that model is extremely hard to come by!! --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Back two years ago there weren't (I think) easy-to-use references system, and since most of the information seems to come from the book, I believe it was the best they could do. I don't object the FA status when it got it, but I object the current status. -- ReyBrujo 16:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Dumb question, but in the S-197 section, aren't press releases written word for word a copyright violation?--293.xx.xxx.xx 18:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove not FA quality, lacks references and much data. --Bob 16:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Note to all editors: This is not the place to comment to keep or remove the FA status from the article. At this stage the concerns are raised and if they are not addressed within a considerable amount of time (usually 2 weeks) then this is moved to FARC where "votes" are issued to keep or remove the article. Joelito (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Needs inline citations (1. c.). LuciferMorgan 22:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Move to FARC: lacking inline citations, and that's not the least of its problems. Sandy 01:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, no one bothered to address a/or help in my concerns in the opening post, so I went in and deleted most of the technical stuff and cruft, and did some reference notes. Also, I tagged the SN-95 section with rewrite tags. It's a start.--293.xx.xxx.xx 11:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b), commercial POV (1d), and citations (1c). Marskell 14:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove Lacks sufficient inline citations (1. c.). LuciferMorgan 17:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong remove. No inline citations. 3 listy sections in a row. 1 stubby sub-section. Very poor references.--Yannismarou 14:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong remove. Yikes - three tags at the top of the article, and all that Yannismarou said. Sandy 14:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Two more in the SN-95 section as well.--293.xx.xxx.xx 19:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)