Wikipedia:Peer review/Citroën C3 Picasso/archive1

Citroën C3 Picasso

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like feedback on where to take this article or how close it is to a Featured Article Candidacy. Can i get a detailed and bulleted list of issues, areas of concern, improvement and suggestions to do this? I prefer a bulleted layout for simplicity. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

 Doing... Comments may be posted in chunks, depending on how many I have. – Runfellow (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Be as anal as possible, post every little thing you take ussue with; spelling, wording, neutrality etc. Thanks for taking the time to do this ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments, Part 1

I see that you originally tried to get this up to FA status and they sent you here. Don't let them get you down. To be honest, I'm a little surprised there aren't many more featured articles about automobiles, making comparing this article to those a little more difficult than I anticipated. Two of the better Good Articles seem to be Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf, so I'm sort of using those for comparison purposes.

Here are a few comments, going through line-by-line:

Lead

• The first sentence should describe the subject of the article in a plain, matter-of-fact way, and that's about it. As it's currently written, yours immediately jumps into the history. For a template, it would be something like "The Citroën C3 Picasso is a 5-door produced by French automaker Citroën as a mini multi-purpose vehicle (MPV) version of the Citroën C3."
• After that, you can begin the lead section, which will need to summarize all of the parts of the article as per WP:LEAD. As stated in the FA review, the lead section is currently too short. There are a lot of ways to expand a lead section, but the method that works best for me is to look at your table of contents and see if each major heading has at least one sentence in the lead. If not, either a) there should be, because it's important or b) there shouldn't be a section dedicated to it, if you don't think it's important enough to be in the lead.
• Be careful phrasing anything with the passive voice. Rather than phrases like "It was designed by", try starting out with "Donato Coco and Jean-Pierre Ploué designed it..." This will help with a lot of other things later on.

Better? ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Switching between active and passive is not easy, even for me. "X and Y designed the car" would be an active way of phrasing it. With "X and Y are credited", the action (crediting) is occurring to them rather than them performing the action. -R

• I think one source would be sufficient at the end of the sentence rather than breaking it up awkwardly as it is. If one of those sources doesn't list all four, it's not a big deal, or at least not as big of a deal as cramming it with references.Y

Launch

• Generally speaking, chronological format works for most articles whenever possible. Your lead mentions two designers, but they aren't mentioned in the article. It would probably behoove you to include some kind of "Development" section, rather than beginning the main part of the article with assembly. A comprehensive article will include information about the design, predecessors, reasons for production, company preparations, and if applicable, media hype/attention for the new design.
• Putting two wikilinks together, like "Trnava plant", isn't really necessary. One link to PSA Trnava Plant is fine.Y
• "in the west of Slovakia" - change to "in west Slovakia"Y
• "announced in July 2008" - Announced what? To whom? Also, the reference link here just goes to a flash home page.Y

It's actually citation 15, i deleted the other as a duplicate and i've clarified from that source your point ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 18:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comma after "09 and 10 September 2008"Y
• Delete "shortly after"Y
• First it was "presented" to the press, but then it was "unveiled publicly" at an event in Paris. How is the press presentation not an unveiling? The term implies that the car had not been seen by the public yet.Y

I had rogue dates in there i can no longer reference so i removed them. 09 and 10 September have been removed and the section clarified. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete "eventually"Y
• "Shortly after was the release to the rest of Europe in March 2009." - Awkward syntax. "The company began selling the car in other European markets in March 2009."Y
• The sentence beginning with "Launched in" and ending in "VED band C" is far too long, I'm afraid. You're trying to cover all your bases with Template:Convert, but clear prose is more important.Y
• You have "Exclusive" in single quotes in one place, italicized in another. I don't know if the MOS has anything on car names, but I'm fairly sure they're not italicized.Y
• "as of 2012" needs a month.Y
• "16inch" - this is one place to use both a hyphen and a convert template.Y

I've converted them to millimetres but are you sure i need a hyphen? None of the articles i've looked at do this...Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, according to MOS:HYPHEN, "Values and units used as compound modifiers are hyphenated only where the unit is given as a whole word". -R

• When using phrases like "three different trims" or anything similar, you can usually delete "different".

I think i've done this one now. I'll leave it for you to decide. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comma after "In January 2012". Also after "engine as its predecessor".Y
• Check over WP:MOSNUM with this section, as there are quite a few issues you'll need to address here.

I'm not honestly sure if you're going to want me to go through everything like this line by line, especially when I know I'm skimming over a lot of minor issues that will almost assuredly come up in another FA review, should you intend to submit it again. I'm sure you've put a lot of work into this, but I think it will need more if you aspire to get it past the rough nitpickers up at FA. I don't want to just rag on it like this for the whole thing, though, unless that's what you want. Alternatively, I can go with more general advice rather than your requested detailed analysis. Let me know what works for you and I'll work with you on it. – Runfellow (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments, Part 2

Reviews

• If "cheap feeling interior" is a direct quote, it should probably be directly attributed. If it's just a general summary of the critical consensus, it won't need the quotes.Y

It's from multiple reviews, although i believe only one (or two) used the word "cheap" directly. The general consensus was of a hard, cheap feeling interior and exterior fittings. I'll leave this for you to tick off. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The three-word phrase in quotes is better, I think. That'll work. -R

• The first sentence jumps around quite a bit, especially the last "and also the quality of the engines" bit. That should be at least a couple of sentences right there, rather than an afterthought behind thoughts about the interior.

Better? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• "tight" doesn't need to be in quotes.Y
• After "obstacles", split that sentence up because they're two different subjects.Y
• I would recommend using the Serial comma for all of these lists. I know it's personal preference, but it makes sense to use them here.
• Comma after "close to the driver's natural line of sight".Y
• The phrase "Other areas like" implies that the sentence will be about other physical areas of the car, like the displays. You'll want to find a way to rephrase that. Also, the sentence contains very awkward syntax. There's summary style, but you can try too hard to summarize, too. If there are three references with three complaints, I don't see a problem with addressing each issue separately, so long as you don't imply that there was any sort of consensus if there wasn't one.

I think i've reworded it to eliminate this. Your opinion? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 17:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• The sentence about servicing seems very out of place. This section is about reviews, and that information seems like it's design info.Y
• For the image here, I don't think "plasticky" quite works for Wikipedia. Also, the consensus in the section seems to be that the reviews were quite negative about the interior. The caption says that they were "mixed". Were there some reviewers who liked the interior? If so, that should be included. If not, the caption should reflect the content of the article.Y

I meant mixed overall towards the car. Most criticised the interior. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Design and specifications

• The sentence beginning with "This decision is partly" has very awkward syntax. Read that one aloud to a friend to see if he or she understands it.Y
• The following sentence regarding Rebadging is also quite awkward. Generally speaking, avoid "being" sentences.Y

Engine

• The first sentence should read "When equipped with the 1.6 Litre VTi engine, the C3 Picasso Exclusive and VTR+ models are capable of a top speed of 117 mph (188 km/h) in 10.6 seconds and 120 bhp." The hyphen in there is superfluous.Y
• The sentence about BMW is also awkward to read. If BMW designed all of the engines, start with "BMW designed engine X, engine Y, and Engine Z for the car." If they didn't, tell us who did design them.Y
• The references after EGS6 and manual seem redundant.Y - Moved them to be proof they were "introduced" instead ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• "Start-stop system" and "Regenerative braking" don't need to be capitalized. You can wikilink something with a lower case first letter and it'll work fine.Y
• "These two new features are claimed by Citroën..." - "Citroën claims these two new features..."Y
• CO2 is the same thing as carbon dioxide, so that should be the first wikilink to that article. Y
• "independently estimated" - by whom?YCalifornia Energy Commission
• Generally speaking, you have the company spelled correctly throughout the article text, but there is one "Citroen" here, and many of your references have the incorrect version.Y

I tried to pick out issues that were more common, so you can start searching the article for similar problems and be proactive in fixing them. Two things here are of the highest importance here: go through the MOS and make sure the article follows those rules and read the article aloud to yourself or a friend to hear how some of these sentences sound. The most prevalent thing here is awkward syntax, which is a common issue everywhere on Wikipedia. Reading things out loud will highlight those issues for you. More later – Runfellow (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments, Part 3

Sorry it's taken a while to get back to this, real life getting in the way, etc. I'll go back through and look at your edits when I finish going through the article, which will give you more time to refine and allow me to focus on the larger stuff.

Accessories

• Are ABS really considered an accessory? I don't really know. I'd guess that you put those here because another article did.Y

Title changed to Features, which works better. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• "As standard on all models is also the giant three-part panoramic windscreen and five seats" - Awkward syntax, plus "giant" is superfluous (and actually a minor NPOV issue, believe it or not.) Since one part of this sentence is about the windscreen and the other part is about the seats, split them up into two sentences (at least).Y
• "boot" is a regional term, which we call "trunk" here in the States. Is there a term that works for both?Y

Not that i can think of, but trunk is not a term used in the UK and i don't believe Europe uses it either (although i'm not 100% on that). Problem? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

No big deal. "Boot" works fine. -R

Wikilinked it ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• "The Exclusive model is the only to feature..." - "Only the Exclusive model features..."Y
• ", as well as:" - "The upgraded edition also includes tinted windows, ..."Y
• If we can assume people will know what "dual-zone" climate control is, it doesn't need to be in quotes. If we can't, it should be explained. If it's a proprietary technology (as car manufacturers often do), it should be capitalized without quotes.Y
• "Another standard..." - Awkward syntax. I generally get what it's trying to say, but you're trying to say too much with one sentence (this is a general trend in the article.) In this one, you're trying to say all of this in one sentence:
  • The range (the first subject of the sentence) features a unique interior.
  • Citroën (the second subject) calls the interior a "soft grey, Mistral Maxi Taylor", although I don't think anyone knows what that means.
  • Citroën claims "Top European" engineers designed it.

I don't know what to do with that one? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• • The source (though not named explicitly, the third subject) does not list the names of the individuals who designed it.Y
• Comma after "Of the optional accessories"Y
• "kerb side-lights" to "kerb-side lights", as per the source you listed.Y
• "which switch on when the car is locked or unlocked to aid the driver and front passenger from tripping hazards or puddles while entering and exiting the vehicle" - I'd take this whole thing out, but if you're going to include it, you'll have to rephrase. It's not possible to aid from something, like "aid [person] from tripping hazards".Y
• "Also available are: [long list]" This isn't really a sentence, per se, just a laundry list of possible additions with interjections added.

Safety

• As per MOS:ACRO, "an acronym or initialism should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)." So something like "Euro NCAP (The European New Car Assessment Programme)" would be backwards; full name first, then acronym in parentheses. Check for other instances of this in the article.Y

I believe i have met this ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 21:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Generally, avoid using colons to introduce a list. That's not a hard-and-fast rule, but when every other sentence includes one, it bogs everything down and just looks like filler to make the article look longer.
• "The results of the front end were mixed" - "The results of the front end tests were mixed,"Y
• "let down" - Huh?Y
• The sentence beginning with "Protection inside" is another example of a sentence that goes on for too long. The scorers are the main actors at the beginning of the sentence (though since the first part is passive, that's a little hard to tell), and by the end, it's about the types of restraints.

I'm not sure what you mean. The entire sentence is about the protection offered inside the car from the seats. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 17:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Though the sentence regards one subject, it's trying to express multiple ideas. You're trying to say that: a) almost every seat was rated highly for protection b) it lost points because it only used one kind of restraint c) those kinds of restraints can be fatal in some cases. Split that up into two or three sentences and things will be fine. -R

• Comma after "Overall".Y

Generally speaking, the main issue here is clarity. Summary style is obviously important with Wikipedia, and I see that you're trying to summarize multiple pieces of information. But more important here (and elsewhere) is definitely clear prose. As per WP:MOS at the very top, "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." Boiling sentences down to their basic structure ("W includes X. X is adjective. W also includes Y. Z considered Y too adjective.") will make this more boring to read, but I'd rather have more more boring than more convoluted. Keep working at it and I'll come back with more comments later. – Runfellow (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments, Part 4

Watchdog and UK recalls

• This section should probably be titled simply "Recalls".

The Watchdog controversy generated massive negative media publicity against Citroën and Watchdog has a high amount of viewers. It's not every day 24,000/24000 sold cars are recalled. I feel the heading should mention that since it's the most notable event in the section. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• "611 C3 Picassos built between January and March 2010 were recalled on 20 June 2010," - This illustrates the importance of the passive vs. active issue. As written, the sentence leaves out an important detail: Who recalled them? The manufacturer? The country's agency? That's because of the very nature of passive sentences often leaves out the real "doer", like "X were recalled." instead of simply "Y recalled X." What I'm saying here is that if you just add "by the manufacturer" at the end of this sentence, it won't solve the issue.
• Other than the section title, you haven't named a the "country" you're writing about until the third paragraph here. In any case, "United Kingdom" is better than UK in this context.Y
• Putting these events in chronological order would make this easier to read. For example, "BBC produced an episode of Watchdog regarding this. The problems they mentioned included X. The company addressed those problems by issuing a recall, which included..." etc.

They are in chronological order? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• The sentence "Despite this..." doesn't fit in that paragraph, which is about Watchdog.Y
• Watchdog needs to be italicized every time.Y
• "as long ago as" - "as early as"Y
• Dunno who "VOSA" is.Y
• "it cutting out" - the battery or the gearbox?Y
• The indirect use of "offending" here is technically correct, but not really right for an encyclopedia.Y

Awards

• First sentence: Active vs. Passive

Better? ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Did the magazine state that quote, or was it a specific writer? If a specific writer, name him or her.Y
• The sentence "This was a year before..." is another anachronism of sorts. Begin the section with "A year before the C3 was released in the United Kingdom,..." etc.Y
• "In 2009 when the car was finally" - "When Citroën released the car in the United Kingdom in 2009, it won "Best MPV" at What Diesel magazine's Car of the Year Awards, "Scottish MPV of the Year" at the Scottish Car of the Year Awards, "Best Supermini MPV of the year" at the Auto Express New Car Awards and "Design of the Year" at the Fleet World Honours." Italicize publications, but not the names of awards or the presentations.
• "Many reviews had complained of poor fitting and the finish used on the exterior." - Firstly, reviewers complain, the reviews themselves do not. But this sentence is really out of place anyway, and should probably be with the "Reviews" section.
• As a matter of fact, it seems like this section ought to be at least related to the "Reviews" section in some way. I'd consider making "Reviews" a top level heading, moving it down, and including "Awards" as a subheading under it.Y

Advertising

• Lot of MOS issues here. See WP:ITALIC especially.Y

I believe i have complied now. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• "H Suresnes advertising agency" is capitalized and not italicized.Y
• Same with "Euro RSCG Paris". Companies aren't italicized.Y
• Ghostbusters is capitalized.Y
• "remix of the Ghostbusters theme tune by Street Life DJs" seems convoluted and confusing. The song was originally by Ray Parker, Jr., but the structure of the sentence implies it was written by the Street Life DJs.Y
• "Street Life DJs" aren't italicized.Y
• Comma after "As the monster is defeated".Y
• "in an impossible feat" - Seems a little silly to say it's an impossible feat when we're talking about a commercial parody of Ghostbusters. I think we know that it's an exaggeration.

I'm toying with this one, but if i take it out then people who haven't seen the advert may be led to believe it's possible to stack a lot of stuff in the car like that and that i could have exaggerated the monster size. Is it a big issue or something i really should change? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll have one more set of comments later. – Runfellow (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments, Part 5

Sales

• I don't know what the standard procedure is on sales sections, but I know some people sort of flip out at the sight of a stand alone table. I'm not really one of them, but understand that might be an issue later on.

It's statistical information with a notes section, i really have no way of writing that out from a list of numbers and years without making things up. I really can't do anything about this one. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why the UK sales get their own column, but no other country does. If it were produced in that country, I could see it, but it's a French car. The rest of the article is also very UK-centric, considering it's sort of a pan-European car.

I only have UK sales figures since i can't find any other released foreign sales figs, even from Citroen. Plus the UK was one of the biggest markets for this car, unless i count all of the Eurozone as one single country. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• "very little of the year" - Awkward phrasing.Y
• You'll want to decide whether you're going to use complete sentences in the "notes" column or not. Some sentences are, others are just fragments. Be consistent. If you decide to go with all complete sentences, consider changing the section to prose anyway.Y

I don't see the logic in that as i'd lose a lot of the information and have to make reasons for sales numbers, resulting in Synthesis and Original Research on my part. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

C3 Picasso Facelift

• Ref #137 goes after the comma. Y
• The first sentence starts out fine, but after the comma break, it makes an awkward transition back to passive: "with it expected to go on sale in the UK in the first half of 2013".

How do i change that to active when it hasn't happened? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• "static cornering lamps" - If you don't know what these are, we don't either. The fact that they're in quotes implies it's something you're quoting directly but don't know what the phrase means.Y
• "Two new colours were also added" - Assuming you're talking about exteriors here, but the way the sentence is structured, it actually says that two new colors were added to the car (as in maybe the seat colors were changed, etc.) "The company released two new exterior paint color options." makes more sense.Y
• Granted, I have a very wide monitor, but for me, this section and the one below it have huge chunks of white space because of the extra automobile infoboxes. I know some other automobile pages have those near the bottom, but I don't think you have enough new content here to really justify one. Using an image would probably be fine, so long as you include that information in the section.

I was told by the Automobile Wikiproject that i should ideally include an infobox for models in the article...Plus it's in preparation for the new model as it will be on sale in the new year, possibly earlier to France. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 17:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

C3 Aircross

• You've gone back to italicizing car names here, in this case the Aircross. Eliminate all cases of this, since I'm almost certain that a car name will never have this kind of formatting.Y

I'm pretty sure i erased all of those...And you're right, Wikiproject Automobiles recommends they are not highlighted at all. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 17:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Urban-off-road" vehicles being common on Brazils roads." - fragment

Unsure if i've done this one but i've attempted. ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• "This vehicle was launched in early 2011 for the Latin American market; Brazil and Argentina specifically" - Why make this so hard? "The division launched the vehicle in Brazil and Argentina in early 2011."Y
• The fact that the car runs on bioethanol isn't really a "comparison" to the Picasso here, and thus doesn't really belong in that sentence. Split it off.Y
• As is the "exterior is styled to include" section. I still don't think you need all these lists after colons.

I didn't want to rely solely on the picture or i'd hardly any information on the car. I've rewrote it though. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete "actually".Y
• Which one is "also used" by the Peugeot? From the way you phrased it, it could be either the Aircross or the Picasso. Another passive vs. active issue.Y
• Delete "thereby increasing their Latin American presence".Y
• "and were targeting a "young and adventurous" market audience to do so" - The sentence is about how Citroën wanted to sell X number of cars per month. You probably meant the company expected a younger market audience to buy the cars, but as it's phrased now, it actually says that they expected the "young and adventurous" market audience to sell the cars.Y

Where to go from here

As Wikipedians often do (sometimes too much so), I'll be frank here: There's still quite a bit to do on this article before it's ready for FA review. Keep working at it, and use the comments above as general cues, not as a comprehensive list. If you go through and change only the specific things I've mentioned, it won't really help you that much. Here are the next few steps I would take if you really want to get this article going:

• Work on the changes I've mentioned. For anything I mentioned more than once, go through the article and look for more cases elsewhere. This is especially true with things like awkward syntax, passive vs. active voice, and MOS issues.
• Try to find a MOS or template specifically for automobiles. Sometimes, even users can have one stashed away someplace. Go through the regular WP:MOS and ensure that the article follows it closely.
• Solicit the help of other editors interested in the subject of automobile articles. I know there must be quite a few out there.
• Read it to a friend or two out loud, or at least to yourself. Read it slowly. Pronounce every word. You don't even really need their feedback most of the time; the issues will pop out as you read them. I do this on nearly everything I publish, and although it feels a little funny at first, it's the best way to catch many of the awkward sentences that sounded perfectly normal in our heads.
• After you have done all this, submit it to the Great Guild of Copy Editors, whom I hold in high regard.
• At that point, I would ask for a reassessment of the article's Good Article status. If you've done all of the above, it should be passed through again, but I think a more sufficient GA review will help you handle the FA promotion process a little easier.
• Then submit it for another peer review. If you'd like me to comment on it again, let me know. Or I can leave it alone and let someone else have their say.
• After that, submit it for FA review again, and be sure to note the steps you've taken in between the two reviews.

All that seems like a lot of work, I know, and obviously you're not bound to any of it. Maybe you don't think it needs another GA review process (it's unconventional of course to submit your own article for reassessment), or you might want to skip the second peer review (it's not required), or perhaps you'll be content with GA status. Those are all fine and respectable options. But I think in the long run, if you're really gung-ho about this (and again, you may not be, which is fine), you'll end up with a much better article if you go through the process above.

Keep working at it, and let me know if you have any questions or comments. If I need to address anything in your responses above, I'll probably add another section below, rather than going into confusing triple bullet lists. – Runfellow (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You've been brilliant Runfellow, you've been very very detailled, and gone through everything in amazing detail.

I'm dyslexic and as you've now noticed i can't often phrase a paragraph that easily in less than 5 edits in some instances...

I may go for another peer review after i've dealt with yours as a way to see if there's other stuff you may have missed but i do hold your work here in very high regard. After that i'm not sure what i'll do.

So for now i'm happy with your analysis and just request responses to some of the points i have replied to above. Thank you very much and have a nice day/evening ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 17:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to keep up with any questions or comments you have on here. Keep working at it. – Runfellow (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Further replies to above

• If you still want to include Watchdog in the section title, I recommend adding "investigation", i.e. "Watchdog investigation and recalls"
• Awards first sentence active vs. passive – Yes, better.
• I don't think anyone is really going to think one can disassemble a monster and place it in the boot of a Citroën. It's not a big issue, but yeah, impossible feat sounds a little funny, almost condescending, like adding "by the way, monsters didn't actually attack)".
• You can still include some or even all of the information you've included after the colons; far be it from me to say what you should or shouldn't include. I'm just saying that it should be woven into the prose as gracefully as possible, rather than doing this: over, over, and over.
• If you want, I can go through after you're done and fix a few of the MOS or passive/active things.

Runfellow (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Go for it, i'd really appreciate that.

The new model launched early, it's on sale already in Spain as a matter of fact. This makes things more difficult as there will be a huge amount to do over the next few weeks. At least now i know what and what not to do.

Thanks a lot ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 23:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)