Talk:American automobile industry in the 1950s/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) 20:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comments to follow in the next day or so, once I've had a chance to read through the article. Malleus Fatuorum 20:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• No hurry. It is a large article with a lot of sources, so I expected it to take a while to comb through properly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

  I'm on my second glass of wine now, so we'll begin tomorrow; I find that wine helps me to write, but not so much to review. Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

  ...except for this:

References

• There's something wrong with refs #40, #52, #53 and #100, as they don't link to anything.
  • Those all link to the bibliography section from {{sfnp|name|date}} type harvard links, unless I did all those wrong. It does highlight that particular book entry on linkage as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Wait, they do it right if you open the link in a new window, but not in the same window. I will debug that....Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    They should, but they don't. Just to take the first example, it links to Robinson (2004), but the only Robinson in the bibliography is 2006. Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    Ugh. I had a problem with those books, I own them, but the online links show different dates than the copies I have. I might not get it tonight, but I will verify each book in the bibliography manually and update using the physical book I have, and update the links with the right year. I assume we use the copyright year as the year, not necessarily the first or subsequent publish dates? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

    Forget online links, link to the copies you've used. Anyone who's interested can chase the ISBN and find an online copy if one's available. And what's your beef against putting the bibliography in alphabetical order? Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

     Done, including alphabetizing. I've left the links, trusting my own eyes for the year. Two of those were my own typos. After working on this so hard for so long, my eyes glaze over the small things sometimes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead image caption says "1957 Chevrolet Bel Air convertible, one of the most iconic autos of the era". In whose opinion was it one of the most iconic?
  • Dammit. Ok, I admit it, I knew that should have been sourced and I got lazy. I did look for a source briefly but not hard enough. I will rectify that tomorrow, about to take off for the evening. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Robert Genat book as cite. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• "By the end of the decade, the industry had reshaped itself into the Big Three and AMC, and the age of independent auto makers was over, as the independents either consolidated or were soon to be out of business." That doesn't really make sense. If "soon" is within the timescale of this article it's redundant, and if it isn't it's irrelevant.
  •  Done Clarified as "most" since Studebaker did hang on into the 60s, removed "soon". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

American Motors

• "The following year, The Rambler Rebel came with the largest of AMC's newly developed overhead-valve V8 ...". Two questions about that: was the car really called "The Rambler Rebel", as opposed to the "Rambler Rebel", and "the largest of AMC's newly developed over-head valve V8" doesn't make sense unless you mean "V8s".

• "... which increased the horsepower to 288bhp". Why have we suddenly switched to bhp?

• I don't see what the penultimate paragraph, about the Willy Jeep, has to do with American Motors during the 1950s.

• •  Done x 4. T -> t, V8 -> V8s, bhp -> hp, removed Willy's section, which I had previously also questioned. And looked up definition of "penultimate" for good measure. ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

American Motors

• I've been pondering over this subsection and apart from the first and last paragraphs I don't see what it has to do with industry consolidation. The Hornet info is largely duplicated in the Notable failures section anyway.
  • Some of that is redundent and can be removed. I do think it is helpful to have a synopsis of the "start" of AMC there, since it took place in the 1950s. I would have to ponder that. If we broke it apart as you suggest below, that would leave one heading "Industry consolidation" and only one subheading "American Motors", and I'm not sure how that flows. I need to ponder this a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    I'd just drop the American Motors subsection heading and merge what's left into the main consolidation section. Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    •  Done Had a few minutes while the wife is on the phone, so removed the two middle paragraphs, combined into one section, and change notable section to main header. Will clean up later. and figure out the move. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Notable failures

• I think this is in the wrong place, and would fit more naturally as a full section after Innovations.
  • I see the logic in that, but the photos really line up well with the tables, so having the tables after the notable failures is "handy". That is more a matter of aesthetics rather than content, but not unimportant. What if it were broken into a new section, and then both the failures and all the tables were moved down? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    I'm not sure I follow what you're suggesting, but it seems clear to me that this section is in the wrong place. Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    • • The tables are narrow and stay on the left side of the page, while the images are narrow and stay on the right. Format wise, it works well to have the tables after the "notable failures" due to the long line of images, which can overlap into the tables area. It flows well. I wondered about moving both the notable failures and the tables down below the Innovations section, to achieve that same flow. There are a lot of images, but I think they add context here, being one reasonable image per "failure". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

        But images ought to be contained within a section, rather bleeding into the following section. Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

        • • Ah, that would explain it. I've been kludging it the wrong way for years. I have moved the "notable failures" section and the images around a bit, but they are not really optimal yet. No offense taken if you want to juggle them around a bit to get the layout looking better. I'm off for the evening, but I wanted to at least get that much done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
          •  Done We can juggle images once the prose is more complete, but they are formatted in sections better. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Industry sales

• I think this table needs to have sortable columns. Also, I'm not sure it's being properly described. To take just one example, Hudson wasn't a manufacturer from 1950 until '57 as it merged with Nash-Kelvinator in 1954 to form American Motors. Are we really talking about marques here?
  • It may be, that is directly from the source. I will have to look again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    •  Done Table properly formatted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Production by year

• Similarly, I also think this table should have sortable columns.
  • I will have to steal borrow some code for that, I've never done one but that is doable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    The tables are actually set up wrongly anyway. I'll do the Production by year one and you can copy that formatting into the other. How's that? Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    Sounds great, I appreciate it. I'm going to a be a little scarce tonight but will be around regularly for a few days. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

    No worries, we've got plenty of time. I've done that table now anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

     Done by you, I copied the format into the other. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

V8 engine

• "Ford used its V8 flathead engine in most of its line up through the beginning of the decade, even as it introduced the Ford Y-block engine and the similar but larger Lincoln Y-block V8 engine in 1952 for their luxury car lines." This is an issue that recurs throughout the article. Are we considering Ford, for instance, to be a singular or a plural entity?
  •  Done That must be an Americanism or just my ignorance, I find I use "their" as a singular often, but I see what you mean. I believe I have it trimmed down to only the properly, plural "their"s, replaced with singular "its"s. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• " In particular was the Chevrolet small block 265 cubic inch engine that was released in the 1955 model year, which became the basis for the subculture, and is the same foundation for the V8 engines still in use by General Motors today." What subculture?
  • Small block chevy subculture was the goal. Not sure how to source that, or explain it better. Time to ponder and/or trim again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    •  Done Removed "subculture" part. It might be true, but it is very difficult to state and source properly without going out of scope, so it is best left for a "history of" article. I think I have that stated cleanly, but you might take a look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Recession of 1958

• "The Recession of 1958 saw dramatic declines in the automotive industry during 1957 and 1958". How could a recession in 1958 have impacted vehicle production in 1957? Declines in what?
  • The Recession of 1958 started in 1957, and part of what caused it was the decline of automobile production, which began in the spring/summer of 57. The decline wasn't caused by the recession, the decline helped cause the recession, considering that was 1/6th of the entire economy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done I went back and re-read the source, which indicated that autos, home sales and defense spending cuts caused the recession, slightly modified the phrase to make that clear. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Entertainment

• "Beginning in 1955, Chrysler offered a small phonograph called the Highway Hi-Fi in its luxury cars, which played proprietary seven-inch records. They proved unpopular and were soon discontinued." Shouldn't that be "It proved unpopular ...", as it looks like we're just talking about the records, not the player.
  •  Done I do seem to have a brain block with my singular expressions, something that obviously needs work on a larger scale. Changed to "it" and "was". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

V8 engine

• " The Lincoln Y-block 317 cubic inch motor and was rated at 160 hp". There's either something missing, or that "and" shouldn't be there.
  •  Done Fixed. I won't be shocked if there are more of these, from trimming and reworking the same sentence multiple times in an effort to be concise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Seat belts

• " Swedish Saab first introduced seat belts as standard in 1958.[36] After the Saab GT 750 was introduced at the New York Motor Show in 1958 with safety belts fitted as standard, the practice became commonplace." We seem to be saying the same thing twice there.
  • Looking at that whole section, I need to go back to the sources and re-read them. That was a bit of a copy/paste job from the main article, which I'm finding is often a mistake. The dates in the second paragraph don't match either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    •  Done? I've resourced and completely changed up that section, removed one patent, three sources and adding one better one. It credits Volvo (non-USA) rightfully as driving the US industry in this respect. Might need a Malleus touch on the prose, but I think it is better now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Air conditioning

• " Walter P. Chrysler had seen to the invention of Airtemp air conditioning back in the 1930s for the Chrysler Building ..." What does "seen to" mean?
  • I want to say that is direct from the source, but will reread the source and clarify. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    •  Done (see below)
• "... but none are known to have been sold in the latter form until the 1953 model year". We haven't talked about any form, so what's the latter form?
  •  Done I removed that section. It was his son, Walter Chrysler Jr. who worked with Airtemp and it is confusing to find the info on the Chrysler building, but more importantly, it really doesn't add anything to the story here, so I just removed it to stay within scope. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Concept cars

• "The Ford Nucleon was a concept car first announced by Ford in 1958." When was it announced for the second time?
  •  Done Smart-ass ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Auto design legend Harley Earl ..." I really can't let you get away with that, far too fancrufty.
  •  Question: Is "car god" too much hyperbole? Maybe "Renowned auto designer", or do you think it needs to have zero adjectives here? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    It needs to be neutral. You may believe him to be a "car god" but I've never heard of him. Malleus Fatuorum 20:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    •  Done Removed all adjectives. He gave us the first concept car, tailfins, the Corvette, and more. Worth a read. His article should be dwarfing this one and should be brought up to GA. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Notable failures

• " For 1962, Chrysler offered $300 towards new vehicles to existing customers, and added to the expense of changing signs at dealerships and other expenses" That seems a bit muddled to me. Chrysler offered a $300 discount to existing customers of what, the DeSoto? All new customers? And added the expense to what? Presumably this is saying that Chrysler offered to reimburse dealerships for the necessary re-branding after the DeSoto line was dropped?
  •  Done sort of... I added a bit more info to make it clear, although I don't think I have the prose quite right Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
• " Its early popularity was due to its sleek design, low center of gravity and excellent handling, but they failed to keep up with rest of the industry by mid-decade. The 1955 Hudson was actually a rebadged Nash auto with different trim. They were offered with a V8 in 1955". We've got a clash of "its" and "they" there.
  •  Done Dejavu... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• " After the 1954 merger with Packard failed to fix the financial woes that had plagued Studebaker for years and they stopped auto production in 1959. They unsuccessfully attempted to restart the brand in the 1960s and they discontinued automobile production in 1966." Something not quite right there.
  • Several things were not right so I went back and did some reading, worked on some of them, but now I'm thinking that the combined company Studebaker-Packard might actually belong in the upper section along with AMC, under the "Industry consolidation", remove Studebaker from the failures since they did continuously use the name until 66, and keep but trim Packard in the Notable failures, since they stopped using that name after the 1958 year. Wanted your feedback before swinging an axe that large. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    That seems good to me. Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

    •  Done Although it may still be too wordy in the "consolidation" section. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• "The 1950s were the pinnacle of American automotive manufacturing and helped reshape the United States into an economic superpower." I'm a bit puzzled by that "reshape", which implies that the US had once been an economic superpower, had somehow ceased to be one, and then became one again. Malleus Fatuorum 21:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done It could be said that it helped reshape us from isolationist to a superpower, but changing to shape is easier. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Concept cars

• "Decades later, the car later became inspired autos in the Fallout series of video games." Assuming that what that's trying to say is the Ford Nucleon was the inspiration for the autos in the Fallout series of video games, I don't believe that's actually what the blog article cited as a source is saying. Rather, it seems that the game designers were unaware of the Ford. Malleus Fatuorum 13:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done Removed. The Fallout games are one of my guilty pleasures, thus I'm very confident it was the inspiration due to the design of the reactor, which is identical and a theme throughout the entire series. Of course, that makes it original research without verification, so I removed until I can find a WP:RS. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• OK, I think we can close this now. Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.