Talk:Allard J2X-C/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Resolute (talk · contribs) 03:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

General

• No images, which is a shame because it seems that a picture would help this article a great deal.
• Check of sources reveal no concerns.
• Appears NPOV
• It is a short article, but I can think of no obvious deficiencies.

Lead

• It is noted in the lead that limited budget crippled development of the car, but this is not stated or referenced in the body.

Development

• For accuracy with the source, note that Humberstone licensed the Allard name rather than purchased it.
• It is said that the design allowed for an "enormous amount of downforce". However, since I am not a race car guy, I have no context to place this in. Would it be possible to note how this compares to the a common class C car at that time?

Racing history

• however, due to the car's lack of power and high downforce, he was only able to finish 19th overall - You've already mentioned about three times by this point that the car had high downforce and lacked power. I don't think there is a real need to reiterated it again here; "however, he was only able to finish 19th overall".

overall

A nice little article. Only a few nitpicks as noted above, so I'll place the nomination on hold for the time being. Resolute 03:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

1. OK. I can't find any free images online for the article; would a fair-use, non-free "some rights reserved" image from Flickr be acceptable?
2. I would say that the limited budget is mentioned in "With the J2X-C far from being completely developed, Allard Holdings were liquidated in the first quarter of 1993, and the car was sold to Robs Lamplough for £76,000".
3. I've changed the passage of text to show he licensed it.
4. Added a comparison with a regular car with a similar level of downforce, and two with lower values. I used to know a website that was fairly reliable and had lots of the values, yet can't find it any more.
5. Removed the excessive mention of the car's deficiency.

• Anything else? :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, and this hasn't transcluded onto the talkpage properly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• I wouldn't worry about the image. I was just lamenting that we don't have a free one and I don't think we can justify FU here since it is theoretically possible to take a free photo (unfortunately, I am on the wrong side of Canada for that). It won't hold up this nomination. The rest looks good. I would disagree on the company's liquidation meaning the same thing as the company having a limited budget. Your primary source does not seem to mention a limited budget, only that the development was never completed as the company ran out of money due to lack of buyers. I'd like to see either the lead altered slightly to reflect the source, or a source for limited budget added to the body. Thanks, Resolute 15:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Tweaked it :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Excellent! I'm happy to pass this now. Cheers! Resolute 16:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks very much. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)