Talk:Ford Falcon (AU)

Fully edited article

This article is fully edited and unless vandalised, it does not need any editing. ThanksHarrison-HB4026 02:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not realise that that was wrong to say, and I have learnt from it.Harrison-HB4026 09:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So many errors on this page!!! Will come back and fix some more if I have the time. 220.245.162.91 06:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Automobiles

An assessment by the automobile group of this article (I have substantially edited so therefore would prefer not to grade) would be most appreciated.--VS ^talk 11:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Prototypes

The new prototypes ection is just plain wrong, those aren't Prototypes, they are concept cars or, if they make it into production, SVPs. Greglocock (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello there. Well, I had a similar thought, especially about the non-Ford ones. Will at least change the heading to "Concept cars" as you say but feel free to tweak further or wait to see other comments. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

R5 - AWD?

Pretty sure the car shown at sydney in 2000 was rwd, the citation given does not mention awd. Greglocock (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally the edit summary was wrong, the bonnet height needed to be raised for 4wd (not AWD, wasn't available then even as a proto) at the time, not the ground clearance. Greglocock (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Good question and one I have been able to easily answer by simply searching online. The first R5 was not AWD, a revised edition was - see new references in article. About the ground clearance, many AWD variants don't necessarily need more than 75mm compared to the donor platform CtrlXctrlV (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

recalls-failure to establish notability

I've raiesd this at project automobiles-few recalls are notable. I see nobody has bothered to try and establish notability depsite it being flagged for a while. Greglocock (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know where is the best place to respond but I am reading Notability and it talks about stand-alone articles. Indeed, it reads "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)." The information added is verifiable, reliable and relevant to the subject. I note you took up issue with other valid content previously CtrlXctrlV (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ford Falcon (AU)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I have rerated the article as "B" class. It needs a good copy edit to fix some minor spelling and capitalisation issues. Some details on sales figures would also be useful. --Mattinbgn/ talk 07:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC) I have changed the article rating from B class to a Start class, mainly due to the fact that it is far from as good as other B classed articles. If you do not agree with the rating change, then read what a start class article contains here, if you still disagree with the rating change talk to Senators. --SenatorsTalk | Contribs 06:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 21:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ford Falcon (AU). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120708014108/http://autoweb.com.au/A_50679/cms/newsarticle.html to http://autoweb.com.au/A_50679/cms/newsarticle.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160118231003/http://www.autoweb.com.au/cms/A_50666/title_The-AU-Falcon-A-New-Edge-to-an-Australian-Icon-Advances-at-a-Glance/newsarticle.html to http://www.autoweb.com.au/cms/A_50666/title_The-AU-Falcon-A-New-Edge-to-an-Australian-Icon-Advances-at-a-Glance/newsarticle.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328114342/http://www.autoweb.com.au/cms/A_51483/title_Ford-Tickford-Experience-set-for-Launch-in-October/newsarticle.html to http://www.autoweb.com.au/cms/A_51483/title_Ford-Tickford-Experience-set-for-Launch-in-October/newsarticle.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

30 Day Lock

Can we please put a 30 Day lock on the page? YouTuber “HubNut” has directed his fans here & some are vandalising. Thanks. Ukeditor3939 (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)