Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Electric car/archive1

Battery electric vehicle edit

This was put up for peer review on July 3rd, in hopes that it might be a Main Page FA by July 21, when Who Killed the Electric Car? opens in theatres, but getting up to FA quality and incorporating all the peer review recommendations took longer than the several editors who have since been trying to improve it to FA status expected. Anyway, it's pretty much there now, and the movie opens tomorrow, so at least there's that. LossIsNotMore 10:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well written and comprehensive article. My one concern is that the puts the Horsepower of the Venturi Fetish at 300hp, but the article for that automobile states that its output is 245hp.--Thud495 14:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 300 hp is correct.[1] AnAccount2 14:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although the article appears well referenced, there are large sections with no references, and there are some prose problems (Most people do not require fast recharging because they have enough time (6 to 8 hours) during the work day or overnight to refuel. ) Can someone check the images? I suggest a second look after the article has been thoroughly copy edited by a fresh set of eyes, and completely referenced. Good start !Sandy 14:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: all of the images have been checked, and it has had a copyedit of every single section over the past three weeks (compare to pre-peer review version.) AnAccount2 14:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Object~~: 2a. Striking object; well done. Tony 06:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Thud495, have you read the article? Let's take a look at the opening.[reply]

A battery electric vehicle (BEV) is an electric vehicle storing chemical energy in rechargeable battery packs to power one or more electric motors.

BEVs were among the earliest automobiles, and are more energy efficient than common internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. They produce no pollution while being driven, and almost none at all if charged from most forms of renewable energy.

Single-sentence paragraph undesirable.

Fixed; thanks.

"Storing" should be "that stores".

fixed; thanks

"Energy efficient" should probably be hyphenated, even in AmEng (pipe it if the link requires).

fixed; thanks.

Isn't "common" redundant?

No, ICEs are common now but there was a time in the past when they were not and they might not be in the future.

"internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles" is an ungainly quadruple group, worsened by the abbreviation in the middle.

fixed; thanks.

Tell me, do they produce pollution when they're not being driven?

Yes, if the batteries leak or are disposed of improberly (as mentioned in the environmental impact section)

"at all" is redundant.

fixed; thanks.

"Most" - so there are some forms of renewable energy that do pollute?

Yes, biomass for example is renewable put produces large amounts of CO₂. 64.175.85.206 20:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The density of problems here exemplifies the whole text. Please find someone who's unfamiliar with the text to go through it thoroughly. Way below standard. Tony 16:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some of these specific criticism are incorrect. Energy efficient does not need to be hyphenated, some forms of renewable energy do pollute, I would argue that commom is not redundant (redundant with what?, nothing else mentions popularity), that fact that it is an ungainly term is why an abbreviation is introduced although "internal combustion engine vehicles (ICE vehicles)" may be clearer. Rmhermen 18:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

or simply internal combustion vehicles? Pedant 01:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right: thanks for the explanations. Tony 07:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: all of these objections have been addressed; more similar are welcome, although more substantial problems are more welcome. 64.175.85.206 20:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The density of problems here exemplifies the whole text." Fixing those specific examples isn't enough: the entire text needs a thorough copyedit, and thorough referencing. Sandy 22:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - controversy section should be all prose, claims should have cites, like this

The three major US automobile manufacturers, General Motors, Chrysler Corporation and Ford Motor Company have been accused of deliberately sabotaging their own BEV efforts through several methods: failing to market, failing to produce appropriate vehicles, failing to satisfy demand, and using lease-only programs with prohibitions against end of lease purchase. By whom?

Production annonucements and prototypes is messy, should prototypes even be there since wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Quotes should not be in italics, per MoS. There are also a couple of fair use images that don't add much, esp Image:DynastyEVSedan.jpg which causes a big white space above the table. The sentence on Replacing doesn't seem to warrant an entire section.

--Peta 04:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object Image:New Vehicle Purchase Preference.gif should be a SVG. WP 06:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. I've got Inkscape but am having font troubles. Will you settle for a PNG? AnAccount2 16:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've copy-edited the lead and history sections. While one or two changes related to personal preference, most did not. Can you find someone to spruce up the remainder? Tony 10:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will try. I've already printed it and gone at it with a pencil per your suggestions, but, well, it clearly didn't get me enough strategic distance. AnAccount2 15:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object Potentially good article, needs attention.

Very underreferenced. min 1 per paragraph.
Gasp! Is this really a crierion? This would take it from 20 to about 80 refs! Todays featured article only has 39 references for 52 paragraphs.
Citations for contentious facts are a criterion as far as I'm aware. If you start using this style of referencing:- <ref name="reference source1> reference descriptions, dates, authors, etc. </ref> then you end up with a list at the end only as long as the number of sources you have used but with a b c d e f g h i j etc. next to them - much more space efficient. --Mcginnly | Natter 03:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too many red links
Would it be better to unlink them if they can't be created? I'm pretty sure this isn't an actual criterion, either; is it? But I will try to stub them.
If they are notable stub them, if not, remove the link.--Mcginnly | Natter 03:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Hybrid vehicles should be mentioned in the lead to disambiguate the article.
I completely agree and will do so right away.
Don't over do it - the lead should set out what is in this article, not what is in another article - It just needs to make sure the reader isn't led into reading this article, thinking it's about hybrid vehicles.--Mcginnly | Natter 11:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't claim to know much about the subject matter, but the article general reads as a eulogy to BEV's without sufficient balance or counter arguments as to why these vehicles aren't on every road. eg. in the 'cost' comparison to internal combustion engines, the running costs are compared but not the initial costs of the vehicles. I am left none the wiser as to which type of vehicle costs the most other than a vague 'depends on the cost of the batteries' statement. Perhaps some comparative examples would help. so weak object on this point. I acknowledge that there is a section at the end of the article which attempts to deal with proponent and detractor issues, but my bias criticisms exist in the body of the rest of the article.
The detractor issues are also summarized in the intro, but the exciting fact is that recent battery technology improvements (delveloped for laptops and cellphones, mostly) have completely changed the landscape in this respect. I suppose that should be in the intro, too, as well as the Batteries section if it isn't already.
Sorry mate, but even your response sounds POV. If there's a source saying this technology will revolutionise mass transport then great, but even that will need to be noted as conjecture (regardless of how exciting the prospect might be). --Mcginnly | Natter 03:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The lead states:- Some models are still in limited production, but the most popular BEVs have been withdrawn and most of those have been destroyed by their manufacturers. I'm intrigued by this and want to know more and why. A brief look at the TOC doesn't immediately indicated where this information might be found, so I read the history, which ends in the 1960's. The next section is then about a number of models which are in production followed by a table which mentions the destruction, but not the reason. So I'm now really confused. I need these questions answering:- 1. Why was it that the most popular models were withdrawn. 2. Why were they detroyed by their manufacturers (artistic outburst? guilt? bribery by petroleum companies?). I finally find the answers in the controversy section at the bottom of the article after numerous references to the destruction of vehicles. Whilst suspense might be a good writing style for novels, I'm not sure an encylopedia is where you should be practising it.
Well, it has been something of a mystery, and there aren't many good references, because the big automakers have been caught lying about whether the cars were actually destroyed, so the actual answers are actually more complex. I agree this should be expanded and put in up front.
There's still quite a bit of prose that requires attention. The former group points, among other issues, to:-??? It does make sense after a thorough reading of the preceding paragraph (also not too hot), but I think a clearer prose style would help.
I completely agree and will get right on that

--Mcginnly | Natter 13:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very helpful comments. AnAccount2 15:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitigate Global warming. 2 problems here, firstly choice of the word mitigation - it has a sense which can mean "to lessen the severity" so this becomes ambiguous. secondly reading the global warming article it does caveat that the 'prevailing scientific opinion' is that xyz contributes to the warming. I'd skirt the controversy and focus on the low carbon emissions and imply the link to global warming rather than explicitly state it.--Mcginnly | Natter 11:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object images are either inaccurately tagged or poor candidates for fair use. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]