Talk:Mitsubishi 380

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
To-do list for Mitsubishi 380: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Requests: -A 380 GT or VRX picture needs to be added as requested. See talk below.
  • Copyedit: -The article needs to be copyedited.
  • Cleanup: -The sections need to be expanded, in particular the 'Background' and 'Awards' section.
  • Expand:

    -The whole article needs to be expanded, in every section.

    -The 'Background' and 'Awards' section needs to be expanded,
  • NPOV: -The article needs to be checked and fixed for NPOV
  • Other: -There are no references, so these need to be added.


This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I.
Any sections older than 42 days are automatically archived to Talk:Mitsubishi 380/Archive 1. Sections with fewer than two timestamps (no replies) are not archived.


Contents

[edit] Bias

I think someone has a slight bias against the 380. I have made several changes. The starting price is $34,490, not $39,000. The original sales target was 2500 units per month, not 3500. Therefore sales are currently at 40% of the original target (averaged out over the time it has been released). Davez621 08:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marketing?

I'm very wary of the recent edits. It seems like someone in MMAL marketing has had a go at these entries. Some of the changes I accept, but I think it's too pro-Mitsubishi POV now. I won't get into it but someone else should. - Richardcavell 12:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been through every edit of this page from the beginning of the year, and I can't see a single version that MMC's marketing dept would consider remotely acceptable. It's gotten worse since then, with too many weasel words, many more citations needed (and less original research), no infobox, lack of NPOV... and it needs a makeover -- DeLarge 15:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's pro-Mitsubishi at all either. I'd say that this article was written by someone who is very strongly anti-Mitsubishi, and has let a bit of their bias through to what they've written.Sean K 14:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is dreadfully biased, the car has not been cited as a failure by any media or autmotive source in australia other tahn by this author, the heading talking of the impact of its failure furthers this bias, as this car may still sell in more serious volumes. The use of weasel words, personal bias and lack of facts is not deserving of being in wikipedia. Love or loathe the car, it cannot be called a failure till someone other than the author calls it so.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.8.211 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 16 June 2006
Given the three recent comments about the bias of the article (including mine), I've attached a {{cleanup}} tag. I have a list of references which will improve the article somewhat, but left them on my work PC and won't be able to access them until tomorrow. I'll also try and tidy the citation formatting too, but ultimately it'll be down to someone who knows the car better to give it a proper write up.
In the meantime, I've reordered the paragraphs so the articles makes more sense. Previously, we had 2-3 sections on why it was a failure before we even knew basic info, e.g. that it's based on the Mitsubishi PS platform. I've now swapped 'em around and it seems to have made a difference. I don't like putting the "Awards" section in the middle, but placing it at the end (after the ranting) makes it read like a sardonic comment on the Award voters' choices. -- DeLarge 16:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reverts of 7 July 2006

Obviously user:Catstail feels strongly about this - his revert deleted 22 edits over the last 50 days, wiping out the {{cleanup}} tag, the recently-added infobox, the tidy-up of references to an appropriate style, and restoring several dead links I'd pruned out. The edit he reverted to also happened to be the last version he contributed. I reverted the revert, and would invite further discussion here before such sweeping changes are applied in future. Regards, -- DeLarge 08:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I've added the POV-check tag, as stated above the article does seem to have an anti-Mitsubishi bias, espicially the whole "Causes of poor sales" section. --Richmeister 08:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the aforementioned section, as it came off as POV and was mostly unverifiable. --ApolloBoy 05:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 380?

Why does the article "380 (number)" redirect here? I know it should go to a list of 300 numbers but this isn't right to link here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C-Star (talk • contribs) 20:40, November 4, 2006

[edit] Other Models

Can someone upload a pic of the GT or VRX? Much better looking in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.239.21 (talk • contribs) 03:09, August 5, 2007

  • If there is a pic in existence that does not violate copyright, then it could happen. Anyway, on articles it is better to use either base trim models or flagship models of the car, rather than a sport model which can have its own section to accompany the picture, talking about the performance etc. HarrisonB Speak! 09:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)