Talk:Mitsubishi i

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Mitsubishi i has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on August 11, 2008.
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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is a selected article at the Cars Portal.

/Archive 1, July 2006–March 2007: Fuel consumption, The Smart Connection?, Peer Review, GA review

Contents

[edit] Good Article Nomination

Good afternoon (GMT time); I have reviewed this article on 11:53, Thursday June 12, 2008 (UTC) in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. There are seven main critia that the article must comply with to pass:

  1. Well-written: Pass
  2. Factually accurate: Pass
  3. Broad: Pass
  4. Neutrally written: Pass
  5. Stable: Pass
  6. Well-referenced: Pass
  7. Images: Pass

I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has passed all categories and I therefore award it GA status. Congradulations to the lead editors, and keep up the excellent work!

Sincerest regards,
anthonycfc [talk] 01:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Revised - 14:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAC next?

I think it's worth pushing this article through the WP:FAC process - the only thing that going against it is that it's a bit short - but I see that a lot more short articles are making it through FA these days. The article seems to be complete - there really isn't anything else to say - so it's not like waiting to put it through FAC would make it any more likely to pass. If it's ever going to pass, now is the time. SteveBaker 00:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

While I obviously support the effort to make this article an FA, I would like to point out that the article was promoted to GA in the middle of the discussion me and DeLarge were having, and as such it became somehow halted, but some issues remain unresolved. I think it would be better to make sure they will all be, as well as seek some review from WikiProject members again (perhaps there will be more interest on the FA level) to reduce the chances the article might be failed due to some issues that could have been resolved earlier (it's been a long night, please pardon my English...). OTOH, if the Maserati MC12 made an FA in that state, I am worried the process became rather lax, and it puts more responsibility on us to make sure the articles proposed are top-notch while nominated. PrinceGloria 04:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the un-struck-through complaints in the last round of your debate:
2) "...what I am after is the removal of the reference to "some reviewers"..."
It looks like you got your wish here - I don't see the word "some" anywhere in the article and the only mention of "reviewers" seems very concise now. This complaint should be struck out.
3) "And yet again - no prob with the tech stuff at all..."
Looks like this has also been taken care of.
5) "Oh wow, if it is like you say with the crystal ball thing, it's even worse than it could be."
The "crystal ball" thing is pretty much a direct quote from the referenced article - what's your problem with it? Again - I don't see anything to be concerned about here.
7) "I strongly believe that mentioning the fact that a press release from JD Power..."
This appears to be a matter of taste rather than anything actually wrong with the article. Reviewers should refrain from demanding adjustment where it is just a matter of taste. What's there reads well, it's clear, it's gramatically correct, it's spelled right, it's true and it's referenced. That meets the FA standard.
Overall, I don't see what you have (from that list at least) to complain about. But you obviously do - so why not give us a more concise list of your remaining issues and let's see what we can do about them. As far as I can see, the article is ready. SteveBaker 04:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
My rather lenghty conversation with DeLarge above continued over email later, so I understand why you might not see where I'am at at the moment. To cut a long story short, I believe that the opinions of individual reviewers and commentators are simply non-notable and hardly qualify as facts, and therefore they should not be included in an encyclopedic article. Please note that, although they seem "technically correct" (referenced and all), the sentences contain no information beyond what some guys said. While it might be amusing to read what their associations are, I don't think this is exactly encyclopedic material.
Seeing how the FA process does not seem to scrutinize articles well enough anymore, I would be very wary about leaving it as-is, as it hass all chances of becoming an FA that way. There's nothing bad about it, obviously, rather on the contrary, but it would set another precedent for including rather meaningless stuff and could serve as a counterargument for all the POV-pushers who try to substantiate their points by "referencing" to reviews, editorials and all other kinds of stuff. OTOH, I think that the reader experience with the article would not be that much compromised if we would not learn that the car made some guys somewhere think of an egg or Renault 4CV (the latter requires rather well-developed imagination, btw), or that one journalist has a penchant for overly figurative metaphors... I mean, come on, do we REALLY need to know that? PrinceGloria 05:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
PS. The other issues mentioned in my numbered points above have obviously been resolved already, as you have noted.
OK - so your complaints are entirely about the reviewers? I think the official policy on this (which has been debated at enormous lengths in articles about movies and TV shows) is that what the reviewer said is not fact, the fact that he said it IS fact. So when a reviewer talks about the car, you can say he said that - but you can't say that what he said is necessarily true. The opinions of reviewers do matter - especially for a very new (and quite strange) car like this one. Whether reporting these particular reviewers is 'POV' depends on whether they are a representative cross-section of reviewers or whether they are only the favorable reviewers. Of the handful of Mitsubishi i reviews I've read, I'd say these quotes were pretty much typical - so I don't see any evidence of a bias in which reviewers were quoted. Also, reviewers have to be notable - you can't quote what your next-door neighbour thinks about the car...but if these guys are reviewers for reputable car magazines or TV shows then they do meet Wikipedias's notability guidelines - so again, I don't see a problem.
I do agree with your sentiments that the FAC process seems to have gotten easier lately. Several recent articles (including my own Mini Moke have reached FA status with barely a handful of reviewers commenting on them. But I don't think the quality of the articles that are getting through is noticably lower than it was before - so maybe it's only a percieved problem rather than an actual one. Wikipedia:Featured article statistics shows that the number of FA's passed has stayed pretty stable at around 30 per month since the dawn of time (just as well because we need to keep up that rate so we get a new one on the front page every day!) But that steady number is despite a doubling of the number of candidate articles over the past two years. So the probability of an article passing has actually gone down - not up. But the number of reviewers stays about the same - so it would not be surprising if there are now half as many reviewers per article as there was a couple of years ago. I'm not sure what that means in the end. SteveBaker 07:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) Well, thank you for all the comments so far. I'm glad it seems like the above issues have been resolved.

With regards to the recent lull in activity here, I apologise for that. Basically I had a two week period of concentration on the page while it went through the GAN, and after User:Anthony cfc suddenly failed passed it, I kind of sighed with relief and sat back a bit.

I'm in agreement with User:SteveBaker about citing reviews. The problem is when they're used to substantiate a POV, i.e. one reviewer praises its handling and that gets shoe-horned into the article as an indisputable fact by a fanboy, without regard to other opinions. Our job is to pick and choose only reviews which reflect a wider consensus of opinion. I saw one reviewer complain about the "cheapness" of the interior materials, but as that was an isolated copmplaint it won't appear. Alternately, I can quote reviews on the "funky" shape of the car or the lack of luggage space, because I know I won't edit war with someone citing those who think the car is roomy but dull looking. Everyone's commented on the styling, and I've selected the two or three which best help me write "compelling prose".

Finally, FA status...

  • MMC's annual report is due out in the next month or two, and hopefully more detailed production/sales stats will become available. That, and the car's introduction to the UK in July makes me think the article may expand a little over the next few months, if for no other reason than further English language reference sources will appear as a result.
  • I want to expand the concepts section as per User:PrinceGloria's previous comments. Also, reading it as it is, I might also like to move the "Concepts" section above the "technical details", and split off the MiEV bit into the "Special editions"
  • I want to expand the "Specifications" sub-heading, so that it's more than just a table. I can do this quickly, actually. Nothing Taurus-like; just a brief run down of what extras the high-spec cars have over the regular ones, like alloy wheels and UVA front glass.
  • At the moment, it's too short, and I don't just mean counting bytes. At 19.5k, there are shorter FA pages (e.g. Templon, Matthew Brettingham), but they have fewer inline references and wikilinks, and much longer sections, so they seem to have a lot more readable content.

In short, I'd prefer to hold off for a month on the basis of size and stability, and see if I can improve/expand it. Alternatively though, if you nominate it just now I wouldn't fight you. You have more experience with FAs than I do and perhaps feedback from others will help? --DeLarge 11:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I of course wholly support DeLarge's decision to withhold the nom for the abovementioned reasons. I have a few comments, though:
  • I am not sure whether we really need more "specifications" - I believe it is better to link to some sources providing them rather than store them all in WP, after all WP is not just a content repository. I think the amount of specs is just right now, and I would also be wary about getting into more detail concerning equipment. I guess if it is something really notable, like the bike rack in the new Corsa or some "first"/early adoption of a new gadget, it is good to mention it, but merely stating that in more expensive trim levels the car comes with the usual features such as alloy wheels, power this and that etc. might not add too much to the article, and would serve as an encouragement for all those guys who dump loads of specs into articles.
  • I believe that brevity is the essence of wit, so small size should not be an issue. I don't think that Talbot Tagora is that much longer, and still, it does cover almost everything there is to be said about the car. The i's career has just begun, so the article would surely grow over time. I believe quality should take precedence over quantity, and at presence, the article exhibits a very healthy preference for the former.
As concerns the "reviewer" issue, it is really important to me and I am afraid I failed to make my point clear. It is NOT our job to decide which reviews "demonstrate a wider consensus of opinion", that is simply OR. I mean, there are no objective criteria, so even in good will you are creating POV content. In almost every case, one can come up with reviews stating something different, and I believe neither party has the absolute right to claim "their" reviews should be included, while others should not. Including ALL reviews ever written is totally impossible and pointless, while the knowledge of what certain reviewers said does not add much to the article IMHO.
Now, I am not saying that the journalists quoted here are unreliable or anything, it's just that, let's say, I believe that comparing the car to the 4CV is rubbish, while it should absolutely be noted that some people compared the car to the Smart, and I am perfectly sure this opinion is more widespread blah blah. So, now I demand the 4CV comment to be removed and some source citing Smart to be inserted. How about that? Such things will happen all the time if we apply such "fuzzy logic", or even actually they do (usually ending up with articles infested with myriads of references to some more or less anonymous reviews).
I guess "everyone" is a bit too superlative, but we can agree that the car's unusual styling has sparked many comments from journalist, and that's a fact here. I think such quoting of reviews as in the article actually compromises, rather than improves, the prose. So, why not just state the former and concentrate on the car itself, which is the subject here? Is comparing the car to Renault 4CV or "crystal ball" (geez!) any less isolated than claiming the interior is cheap? PrinceGloria 14:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
PS. Now, as to the FA - my comment was actually pretty unsubstantiated, I was just very surprised to see the MC12 pass FA, as the quality of that article is really inferior to all other automotive FAs. I have to apologize for the improper generalization, but I think it should still serve as a warning sign that some things may slip through the FA process. And this is important, because FAs later serve as examples for editors of other similar articles, so whatever will be there, will be treated as a guideline. As I believe the article could pass FA without much problem as-is (and this speaks highly of both the article and the principal author), we have to make sure before the nomination that if it passed, nothing about it would generate issues with people going "but in the Mitsubishi i article...".
The problem I have with that is that you are adding a new requirement on FAC's - that they be examples of the way other articles should be written. That's sometimes true - but there are rare cases (of which this is definitely one) of subjects that just aren't like others of their class. You couldn't make this article come out the way Talbot Tagora did - because it just isn't that popular (not yet anyway). You can't make it come out like Mini because there isn't 40 years of history behind it (yet). But to say it shouldn't be an FA because of that isn't fair. When (as recently happened on the Automobile project talk page) someone asks for a sample article to model theirs on, we just have to be careful about the advice we give. (You'll note my response there - which does exactly that - someone wanted to know how to structure the Toyota Corolla article - and I recommended Talbot Tagora (not Mini or Mini Moke or Masarati CM12...) because those others simply aren't similar kinds of problems. So - let's not recommend this article to people as a good example of how to write a great mass-market or 'historical' car article - but that's not a good reason to deny it FA status if it's deserving. Having said all that, I DEFINITELY wouldn't want to nominate the article for FAC in the face of DeLarge's desire to hold off a while - your best chance of getting through FAC is the first time you try - and it would be most unfair to scuttle DeLarge's ultimate efforts by going for FAC prematurely. On the other hand, I think the article is ready. PrinceGloria's comments are well taken - but (with respect) that user account has only been active for two months and doesn't appear to have suffered the process of shepherding an article all the way from stub to front-page FA. 02:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Steve, I know why you might be upset, but please do approach the issue once again with a bit more good will... My main point is: what I've mentioned is OR and POV (even if done with good intentions), both of which have no place in an FA, regardless of anything else. PrinceGloria 05:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for that last sentence - I withdraw it utterly - as per private email.
But are you saying that car articles can never mention what reviewers have said about the car? If so, we're screwed because for most cars the only available information is:
  1. What you find in magazines (ie reviews)
  2. What you find from 'car magazine sites' on the web (mostly reviews...and forum posts which are inadmissible)
  3. What you find on fan sites (unreliable - heavily biassed)
  4. Manufacturers brochures and advertising.
  5. Books written about the car. (Which are non-existant unless the car is old and high-profile - which eliminates 90% of the cars out there which will never have books witten about them)
  6. What you as a reviewer might know from a car you own (which is OR).
We must rule out the manufacturer's information - which beyond the basic length/width/height/0-60time/mpg/mph data is definitely biassed. Forum posts and fan sites are not acceptable to the Wikipedia referencing guidelines. Then we then cut out all reviews - and then eliminate all of the facts that we can't reference. If we talk about a car (such as this one) about which NOTHING has been written in books - then we have an empty article - not even a stub. Sadly, car reviews in magazines (online or on paper) are the only source of information we have. If we disallow reviews - we're screwed - Wikipedia will be doomed to having only articles about old and famous cars. All we can do as responsible editors is to discard the reviews that are way out of the mainstream and take the ones that are down the middle of the opinion spread. At that point, you can legitimately say that you are avoiding bias and OR...but you do have to pick and choose between reviewers - so some shades of opinion will be ignored. That means that POV bias could creep in during the review selection process - but that can happen with any article at any time - regardless of how well referenced it is. We have to rely on skilled editors to steer that path carefully. Once we have a set of reviews that are worthy of using as references, I see no problem with saying that such-and-such-well-respected-reviewer said such-and-such. That's a fact - and so long as you reference it and don't say that we assert that it's true - you are on solid ground. SteveBaker 14:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break, edits of 2007-03-25

PS2. Not to depreciate the gravity of my comments above, I'd like to add a bit on the changes you've just made. I obviously appreciate the changes to the lead section, but I have some reservations concerning two statements, namely:

  1. Can we say for sure that the Mitsubishi i was designed with the keicar class in mind ONLY? Unless Mitsu or the designers would expressly say so, we won't know either. I do see your point, but I guess it can be put in another way, so as not to "create facts".
  2. From what I can infer from the sources you provided, it is not SPECULATED that the i will come in a EV version in 2010, but it is Mitsu's official plan to do so. Therefore, there is no need to say that "it is speculated" (not to mention everything that is put after "it is speculated" is almost always not encyclopedic, so this phrase should not be used anyway).
The official press statement on its release said "Ushering in a new age for the minicar, "i" was developed as an innovative Premium Small Car that successfully overcomes the tradeoffs traditionally associated with the category",[1] and I'm fairly certain that they didn't end up with a 3395 x 1475mm sized car by accident. However, I can't say that they never, ever considered export sales, so I'll remove "only ever" from the sentence.
The EV thing: gahhh. As recently as the end of 2005 everyone was talking about the Colt MIEV (with the in wheel motors technology) as Mitsubishi's 2010 EV.[2] Then the i MiEV appeared and things seemed to change. However, with three years to go I think it'd be crystal balling to say that these plans are definite. I've spent a lot of time trawling every press release and technical document I could get my hands on, and I still can't find a proper official statement on the matter. I just keep seeing "Mitsubishi spokesmen have said...", but my cited sources are only blog-standard, so until MMC confirms things publicly I think we should play it safe. --DeLarge 22:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Now that you rephrased, another thing drew my attention - there is an implied cause-effect relationship between the "innovative layout and styling" and "commercial and critical success", as well as between "attention" and export sales (btw, is there any other country in Europe where the i was, or is scheduled to be introduced, other than the UK)? While it is not unreasonable to assume such causal relationships might exist, I believe it is unencyclopedic to outright state so. I think slight rephrasing may alleviate the problem.
I see where you're coming from concerning the EV, but I believe that if two independent sources confirm Mitsubishi DID declare so, I believe it really is improper to say that "it is speculated". Any speculations do not belong in WP, so if it really would be speculated, this fragment should not have appeared in the article at all. If the relationship between the i and the "secret" 2010 EV is what bothers you, I would just state that an electric version of the i IS undergoing testing, and that Mitsubishi is considering launching it around 2010... PrinceGloria 00:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict + indent reset) OK, this is getting a bit inconsistent. Whenever there's content already in the article you're saying I need to confirm it more thoroughly (i.e. don't assume that the car was successful because of the style/layout, or don't assume that the car was designed purely as a kei car). On the other hand, I've not outright stated that the 2010 EV will definitely be a Mitsubishi i due to a lack of reliable sources, but you still want me to put that in?

For the first point, it DID achieve success because of its style/layout; read what the most important criteria of the APEAL owners' survey was, or the other awards it won (Good Design Grand Prize, JCOTY Most Advanced Technology Award). It's all there in the references. But for the second point, it's nothing to do with the 2010 EV being "secret"; what's in the article is accurate: Mitsubishi has been saying for at least two years that it wants to release "an EV" in 2010. It's exhibited two EVs so far, and current media speculation favours the Mitsubishi i, but there's still three years to go and we've had no official confirmation, so no crystal balling. All I can verify is that there's been speculation, which is what the page says.

Also, AFAIK the UK is the only European country getting the car because it's the only one aside from Ireland to sell RHD cars. However, in order to sell more than 500 per year in the UK, Mitsubishi has to pass Europe-wide homologation laws, hence why I wrote that paragraph in the way I did. Ireland could get it, but I have no source saying so. --DeLarge 00:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I know you are upset by my constant nitpicking, but there really is some sense in what I am saying, believe me. First of all, perhaps I didn't make myself clear - I am not saying you should say some 2010 EV there were speculations about will be a version of the i. To me, all those speculations are irrelevant, because they are speculations -> unencyclopedic. BUT, there is the FACT that Mitsubishi expressly said they want an electric i to be launched in 2010. If you feel the WorldCarFans source which states that, quoting Mitsubishi, is not reliable enough, why not say that "Mitsu is currently experimenting with an EV version of the i as a part of their effort to present a marketable EV in 2010" - of course it is just a "working version" concerning wording, focused on brevity, but I wanted to show how to avoid the "speculation" clause.
Secondly - of course we can (lo and behold) speculate as to what Mitsu is going to do with their homologation for the i, but for now Mitsu's said it's UK, and until they announce something else, it's UK. While UK is a part of Europe, obviously, I'd say it's a bit misleading to mention the entire continent when the i is going to be sold in just one country. You can always change that when the i will debut in ROI, Malta, Cyprus or wherever else (and then say "selected RHD European countries" or something).
I know I am annoying. But if you take a deep breath, you will see there is some sense in what I am saying - I certainly do not want to be nitpicky for the sake of it, and annoy you as a way of rewarding your efforts. I just want this very good article to be even better! PrinceGloria 05:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
PS. Oh, while the awards were for the design, the JD Power survey does not answer the question whether owners bought their i's because of their design and concept, or whatever other reason - I'd say the entire car proved a success, be it due to or despite its design (I mean, perhaps somebody might think it is ugly or abhorr the MR setup, but bought it for some other reasons, how could we ever know?)

[edit] Images

On an unrelated issue, three of my images are "fair use" claims, and all are of cars either never publicly sold (the concepts), or unique (Hello Kitty). Given the exorcism at today's frontpage article (Ian Thorpe) where every image was removed as a copyvio, should I bother leaving these in? I think the article loses a lot without them, and unlike the Thorpe pics I've claimed and justified fair use exactly as the WP regs demand, but I don't know if that's enough any more... --DeLarge 00:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a universal practice - we've had FU images actually on the front page recently. The rampage was because Thorpe is a living person - and as such it ought to be possible (at least in theory) to get a free image - which (by some people's reasoning) excludes them from fair use provisions. (That's debatable IMHO). However, just two days earlier, (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction was featured with a FU image actually on the front page itself. That was deemed "OK" because you can't get a photo of the album cover without infringing copyright. I think this article will be OK - the images are justified - and the all-important 'headline' image is free-use. SteveBaker 02:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd leave it to FA reviewers to either be pesky about or not. This can be changed in no time if that would be the only reservation. PrinceGloria 05:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hindustan rumors

This doesn't strike me as particularly encyclopedic. Do we have to include all kinds magazine gossip related to the vehicle, especially if it gets disproved in the end? PrinceGloria 08:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with the principle in general, but included it because...
  • It was covered at the time by Edmunds, Ward's Auto, and even Reuters India. That's about as widespread and reliable as sources can be when it comes to cars.
  • The numbers involved made it a very significant rumour - it would have represented a virtual doubling of current JDM production.
  • It was proposed "by the end of 2007", so there's still time for it to happen.
  • PR departments routinely issue denials for true-but-still-to-be-announced products/services. When multiple reliable sources carried the reports, I didn't want to simply dismiss them all on the basis of one letter in one newspaper, which may or may not be PR spin. What I also didn't want to do was represent only one side of the story (and thereby use WP for speculation and crystal balling). I'd be happiest reporting both rumour and denial until the end of the year, and if nothing turns up by then, splicing it out or pruning it down as appropriate; the passage of time is a far more reliable proof than one PR man's denial. --DeLarge 14:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
That said, why don't we wait until it happens? When it happens, it is a fact. Until then, it is a rumor that will either prove true, partially true or all false. Even though the above arguments may seem strong, it is very hard to judge which rumor is "encyclopedic" enough to be included. I personally believe that reporting on everything that media speculates about plagues our automotive articles, so this is just setting a bad example, even though with good intentions. Please do think about it. Thanks! PrinceGloria 18:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)