Talk:Mercury Sable

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mercury Sable article.
Article policies
Cars Portal
This article is within the scope of 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Mercury Sable was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: Error: invalid time
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
User:Karrmann, User:Sable232
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Axle

"For 1998, The Sable got a new grille and rear axle, to yield better acceleration"


Is that an error? How could changing the rearaxle on a front-wheel drive car improve it's acceleration? Unless they reduced the weight of the unit by a large amount, I don't see it...unless that was a typo.

-It's been fixed. Sable232 03:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's restyle this article

Somehow I think this article needs to be restyled to something more like the article for the Ford Taurus. Right now things seem clustered too tightly together. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Karrmann 02:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First-generation models table

I think there might be an issue with the first-generation models table. At the far right, it becomes a tad confusing. I'm not car-literate enough to be able to sort it out myself, but it looks like an easily doable fix for someone who knows what's going on. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed (I think). Sable232 17:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cropping on images

Does anyone have photos of Sables that are not cropped so closely? The only photo that's got enough space around it is the photo of my Sable (the brown fourth-generation wagon). SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have uncropped versions of the photos I put up. But the guidelines suggest cropping to minimize distraction, plus the car appears bigger. I interpret the photo guidelines as making the car the only important part of the picture, and the only important thing of the car is making it clear what a good-condition specimen of the car in question looks like. IFCAR 02:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
My issue is mainly in that we have these photos that are cropped too closely, where the end of the photo is nearly right against the roof or the edge of the photo. I think that the fair use image for the second-gen Sable (Image:Gen2sable1.jpg) has enough space around it on the top and bottom, but it's too close on the sides. I consider the image of the third-gen wagon (Image:Sable Wagon (third-generation).jpg) to be "just right" as far as side space and top-bottom space go. That one also has the added plus of being shot while operating in the street, vs. others shot while parked. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, when a car is photographed in a parking lot, extra space around the car means extra distractions. I make sure not to interfere with the car itself when cropping, but in many cases it's a detriment to have too much space around the car. IFCAR 12:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, regardless, could you post the uncropped versions to see what we can come up with? SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
3rd-gen Sable sedan,4th-gen Sable sedan. I have them in the original size as well. I don't have the uncropped version of the green 4th-gen Sable, but I believe Karrmann will be providing a replacement photo of that one anyway. IFCAR 23:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect the new 2nd-gen image is awful. It is cropped too close, has poor lighting, and the car has crappy chrome rims on it. If we're going to replace nicely done fair use images, can the free replacements at least come close in quality? The main 4th gen image is very nice, and the new 3rd-gen one is pretty good too. --Sable232 21:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll be the first one to tell you that the second-gen photo looks like crap, but it's free license, whereas the old one was fair use. I've been looking for a Sable to photograph for that spot, but haven't found one yet. As for the third and fourth generation images, thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I would get a shot of my Gen II, but it will be tough to hide the minor "issues" it currently has. --Sable232 00:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
What kinds of "issues" does it have? Perhaps someone good with Photoshop and the like would be able to fix them on the computer. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Gouge in the front bumper, rocker panel covers are removed, rust on the rockers and in front of the rear wheels. I won't have that stuff fixed for several months. If you still want the pic, it'll be a few weeks before I have an opportunity to get one. --Sable232 02:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
If you're willing to take it, I'll look at it to see if the image is salvageable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm also continuing to look around, but that's the only 2nd-gen Sable I've seen around to photograph. One possibility is a neighbor's wagon that is almost always parked in their driveway facing away from the road. IFCAR 11:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I am a member of the TCCA, maybe I gan get permission from one of them to use a photo of one of their Sables. Karrmann 19:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a new image of that same aftermarket-wheels Sable sedan. It's of better quality than the original, but it's still the same imperfect vehicle. Thoughts? IFCAR 18:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I think we should focus on factory-appearing cars, at least for the generation's highlight image. I can have a shot of my car by next weekend. I'll try and get it with a nice background and try to get the positon just right. If you guys want to include an interior shot for any reason, let me know. --Sable232 20:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I definitely agree with that, but there's no free alternative at the moment. I see it someone already put it into the article, but I suppose we can put back the fair use image until you get yours ready. IFCAR 20:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I've run into a minor problem and won't have an image ready for another couple of weeks. --Sable232 23:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
No hurry. Take all the time you need. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll have a few by next weekend, so Bull-Doser, you can relax.
Does anyone want an interior shot for the article too? --Sable232 01:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Almost no articles have interior shots, they're probably best left to cars with noteworthy interiors. Just the standard 3/4 front will be perfect. And be sure to take multiple pictures, in case something goes off with one. IFCAR 03:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Bull Doser keeps reverting back to IF CAR's image. Should we protect the page to prevent an edit war? Karrmann 11:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way for non-admins to delete images from the Commons? If a better image is coming soon anyway, it isn't exactly useful, and it would prevent him from posting it. IFCAR 13:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

They deleted that gen 2 Sable image! Karrmann 19:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

They recently swept a lot of fair-use images off of Wikipedia, and I know that I've had to defend a number of images or else see them get deleted. I still haven't seen a good second-gen Sable when I have my camera with me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Neither have I, and I keep looking. Hopefully Sable232 can get his images pretty soon. IFCAR 01:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Or I will put an end to all this BS and get permission from a TCCA member to use a pic of their Sable. Karrmann 01:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
That suggestion by Karrmann might just work. Get a TCCA member to license their photo under GFDL or CC or release it into the public domain, and then put it into the article. If we can come up with a better image later, then great, but that would at least get us a free-license image in the short term. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I brought that up on the TCCA. I will see whwat I can get. Karrmann 02:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I got it. Do y'all like it? --Sable232 20:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks great. I can finally stop looking for one. IFCAR 20:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks nice, great job! Now we can end that whole edit war with Bull-Doser. Karrmann 21:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Great work! Now we just need a semi-talented photoshopper to fix that little yes-indeedy on the front bumper, and we've got exactly what we need. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I am a photochop pro, I can touch it up to remove the bumper damage adn rust spots. Karrmann 02:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top infobox image

It seems we have a dispute between two users about which image to use on the main infobox for the article. And before this edit war escalates any further, let's talk about this. These are the two images:

Sable-sedan.jpg

Postfacelift Sable.jpg

My own commentary on these images is as follows: Sable-sedan.jpg is probably the better of the two. It is at a really low resolution, meaning that it looks like it was part of a much bigger shot and then was cropped in later, therefore it's somewhat grainy and perhaps not as clear as we'd like. Additionally, these faults are mostly hidden when you size it down for article display. Postfacelift Sable.jpg, on the other hand, does have better lighting, and I admit that I didn't notice the aforementioned "glare spot" on the windshield until it was brought to our collective attention in an edit summary. However, there seems to be a motion blur on the image, and it shows when resized for article display. This motion blur tends to obscure some of the details in the image.

So between the two, I'd support Sable-sedan.jpg as the top image, until a better image is made of a 2004 or 2005 Sable sedan. They're both lacking in quality, and we can do better, but Sable-sedan.jpg is less objectionable than Postfacelift Sable.jpg. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That's also the way I see it. Neither is a good image, and I've been trying to get a better one, but the blue one that I took (indeed, from too far away) renders better in 250-px size in my opinion. This is also under discussion on the Wikiproject Automobiles discussion page. IFCAR 16:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe switching my image of the 00-03 Sable sedan to the top infobox and putting one of the facelift images alongside text about the facelift would be the best move? IFCAR 16:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I think our efforts could be better spent looking for another Sable to photograph. In other words, I thing swapping the images would be kind of a waste of time. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
In 15 seconds, anyone could switch the images. Finding an 04-06 Sable depends on chance. IFCAR 17:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Karrmann owns a Gen IV. He can set up a shot in any setting at any angle he chooses. That would seem to make the most sense. I really don't care for either of the images in question here. --Sable232 22:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The images in question are of the facelifted version. Karrmann's family car is pre-facelift, and there's nothing wrong with the quality of the existing pre-facelift image. IFCAR 22:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, we could do without the leaves, plus that one has a huge dent, but yeah, it is the head image I want to replace, because it is very fuzzy. Karrmann 14:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
That's not a dent, it's the light following the actual shape of the car. IFCAR 14:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I got lucky and saw a nice, clean 04-06 Sable in a pleasant setting today. It's the new head image. IFCAR 22:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean Up Efforts Denied

I have repeatedly spent a great deal of time cleaning up this article only to return later and find it COMPLETELY reverted based on opinions that lists should include redundant information already stated in the prose. Screw it. I've tried to contribute, but this has become completely retarded. --Heavy 21:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rating

I lowered the rating to B class. A class is only for articles that are already good articles and are teetering on the brink of becoming featured, which this article is far from. Karrmann 11:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever read the assessmant scale? It reads:having completed the Good article designation process is not a requirement for A-Class. Read the description under A-class, and you might see why I rated it as such. --Sable232 15:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fifth generation update

I added a rear picture and a new picture for the fifth generation sable. Pautlorius 00:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the fair-use concerns are because a picture from Motor Trend was likely taken by a Motor Trend photographer. Since they were not released by Mercury to promote the car, they are not fair use. --Sable232 01:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nominee

To be done:

  1. I think you need a lot more wikilinks. Don't assume the reader is as familiar with auto-centric jargon as you.
  2. What resolution are you editing at? Because left-justifying thumbnails at the top of paragraphs is squashing text into a very thin column at the most popular resolutions (hint: 20 percent of net surfers still use 800x600).
  3. Some refs seem inappropriate/insufficient. For example, you have three citations to support "An important feature of the Sable's design was its front "lightbar", a low-wattage lamp between the front headlamps. This later became mainstream for Mercury's line-up, and was copied by many automakers in the early nineties." But all you've done is link to photos of cars with a similar feature. You've failed to demonstrate causality as claimed in your text, which makes it original research.
  4. "For its aerodynamic shape, the launch was held in MGM Studios Soundstage 85" needs an apostrophe after "MGM Studios" - it's possessive. There may be more grammar/punctuation errors, but I haven't read through in detail. Copyedit more thoroughly.
  5. The Chicago Manual of Style recommends spelling out numbers less than 100 in prose. I see a couple of instances where you could be doing this.
  6. Check your wikicode for the 1st gen table, as I'm seeing empty cells on the right hand side in two different browsers.
  7. I frown on the "year to year changes" sections, as they conflict with the recommendations at WP:EMBED. A flowing paragraph of prose is usually preferred. There's another page on WP which explicitly frowns on these bulleted date lists, but I can't find it for now.
  8. As already mentioned at the Autos WikiProject, metric measurements should be added.
  9. Do you need a table for the 5th gen models if there's only one?
  10. I'd cull the bit about "Drake and Josh" as being trivially unencyclopedic.
  11. Likewise, "1997: Nothing changed, except for map pockets added to the doors."
  12. I don't think the prose is all that great. "Even though the Taurus lineup received a big upgrade with the addition of the SHO, the Sable carried on with just an upgraded lightbar, now fully illuminated" jumps out at me as a bit of a clunker of a sentence, and there's a lot more than just that (e.g. "extensive" for "big", and don't use "upgrade" twice in one sentence). Or "In 1989, Mercury created a "50th Anniversary" edition of the Sable, to celebrate Mercury's 50th Anniversary." Do we really need to state that this was why the edition was created?

I'm leaving my office just now, so I don't have time to put the nomination on hold officially, but it needs some basic work before it goes anywhere. --DeLarge 17:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

6. That was screwed up completely before, and I managed to get it to work, but it stuck those little boxes on there. I have no idea how to fix that.
9. There may be more models in the future, I assume that was put there in keeping with the other sections.
10. Absolutely.
11. I believe there were several items removed in 1997. Add those if they're important enough.
Honestly, I would never have nominated this article. Considering that Ford Taurus has been shot down as a FAC on three different occasions, I wouldn't even bother for a GA with this one. Hell, there was even a suggestion that this entire article be removed anyway. --Sable232 18:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I got rid of the year to year changes, and did some minor fixes. Karrmann 21:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
While I have enough reservations to fail the article outright, I would much more like to see the nomination withdrawn until the issue of whether to merge the article with Ford Taurus would be resolved. PrinceGloria 06:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Nomination

Good evening (GMT time); I have failed this article as a Good Article Candidate per previous discussions. The article has been on hold for over the designated threshold of one week, and no efforts have been made to re-list. The original reviewer has not responded.

Feel free to re-list it as a GA Candidate at WP:GAC, and remember to review the GA Criteria.

You may also wish to contact the original reviewer.

Kind regards,
anthony[cfc] 18:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Top infobox image

I believe we may have a case of WP:ILIKEIT here with the top infobox image, as I've seen a bit of back-and-forth with the top infobox image, going back and forth between images of 5th-gen cars of comparable quality to the existing photo and the existing photo, and the reversion is being done by the uploader of the photo. I'm inclined to go with the auto-show one myself, because it has better contrast than the existing 4th-gen photo. Discuss? SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think this image is better suited for the top infobox. Karrmann (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought the auto show image is of positively dreadful quality, by far the worst in the article, and don't see how you are thinking otherwise. It is covered in distracting reflections, taken from well below eye level (contrary to WPA image standards). It's not a question of who took the photo, and I only reverted without comment because it looked like another knee-jerk "newest car should be at the top" edit. This image is unsuitable to even be present in the article, much less at head. IFCAR (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I've moved some things around. I hope it suits you better. IFCAR (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)