Talk:Mercedes-Benz Vision EQXX

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The Vision EQXX

• ... that the Mercedes-Benz Vision EQXX (pictured) traveled over 1,000 km (621 mi) from Sindelfingen to Cassis on a single charge with energy to spare? Source: In order to quite literally drive this point home, the automaker drove the EQXX from Sindelfingen, Germany to Cassis, a small town in the south of France. The concept traveled 626.3 miles and still managed to arrive with about 15% charge remaining, enough for another 80-mile side quest.
  • ALT1: ... that the Mercedes-Benz Vision EQXX (pictured) has a drag coefficient of 0.17, the lowest of any battery electric vehicle? Source: Add in extensive weight savings, tires that optimize low rolling resistance, and an aggressive aerodynamic design that produces a drag coefficient of 0.17 and Mercedes EQ seems to have the makings of what would be the most efficient electric car ever devised.
  • Reviewed:

Created by X750 (talk). Self-nominated at 07:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC).

• Hi sorry just a comment I actually creates this article on 7 Jan, should I put the nomination that section? Am new to this... X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 07:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @X750: All good, I'll move it to the right place and post a review shortly. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 17:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• New enough, long enough, well written and sourced. No copyvio, image looks good. This appears to be your second Third DYK, so no QPQ required. I made some small edits myself, hope they're all good. In the #Overview section, there is a bit of accidental redundancy (in particular, this group and its contribution are mentioned twice). And you say "Changes included ..." ... changes to what? Overall nice article.
• Any hook is going to be slightly promotional, but what else are you gonna do with this kind of topic. ALT0 works, but I might refine it slightly:
  • ALT2: ... that the one-off Mercedes-Benz Vision EQXX concept car (pictured) can travel over 1,000 km (621 mi) on a single charge? "One-off" is cited in (e.g.) [1]
• ALT1 is interesting but the source doesn't seem to support that definitive a claim (also the "lowest" part of the hook is absent from the article, but anyway not recommending to use this hook) Again, well done! Hameltion (talk, contribs) 18:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Yeah no problem mate, do whatever you feel would be best for DYK. You know more than me. Also, minor correction, it is my third nomination but still no QPQ. Maybe I'll add the lowest thing in when this article reaches GA status. Cheers Hameltion. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 20:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Gotcha, thanks. Struck ALT1. Ready to go. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mercedes-Benz Vision EQXX/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 19:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• This is my first time reviewing a car, so please bear with me! 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 19:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• That should be all! Please ping me once you have addressed my concerns so that I can know when to respond. Thanks! 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 20:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
• Nice work on the changes! I am now happy to pass this article for GA status. Congrats! 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 03:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio check

Earwig says good to go. No concerns from me either. Quotations are used in-line with WP:COPYQUOTE and only short extracts.

Files

All images relevant, good quality, and copyright-free:

• File:Mercedes-Benz Vision EQXX 001.jpg: CC BY-SA 4.0, uploaded to Commons by registered user;
• File:Mercedes-Benz Vision EQXX 002.jpg: CC BY-SA 4.0, uploaded to Commons by registered user.

Prose

• In the infobox, is "Production N/A" standard for articles about concept cars?
• "and like its later EQA and EQB siblings it" – is siblings the right word? Please excuse me if this is car jargon.
• "In October 2020, Mercedes introduced two dedicated electric vehicle platforms as part of a weekly strategy meeting, the Electric Vehicle Architecture (EVA), and the Mercedes-Benz Modular Architecture (MMA)" – May be personal taste, but I would turn the second comma into an em dash for improved readability, especially with the date at the beginning of the sentence.
• "Mercedes would build an electric vehicle with a very long all-electric range" – is there a better word choice than very long?
• "Later, this target was revised to 1,000 km (621 mi)." – recommend changing to "This target was later revised to 1,000 km (621 mi)."
• "The structure of EQXX is said to incorporate" – why is said to?
• "Mercedes has also partnered with several external companies for the technology present in the EQXX." – missing a citation.
• The sentence starting "The cell-to-pack method of packaging" is a bit long. Could the size reductions part possibly be made its own sentence?
• "should there be a need for extreme heat or intense climate control." – I would wikilink climate control.
• "The EQXX also uses a 900-volt architecture, which allows for a lower amperage, which in turn allows for thinner cabling, reducing leakages due to Joule heating." – this sentence is awkward. Recommend rephrasing; maybe a full stop somewhere could help?
• "Despite this capability, during the EQXX's long-range demonstration runs, the charging port was sealed to prevent tampering." – recommend "Despite this capability, the charging port was sealed during the EQXX's long-range demonstration runs to prevent tampering."
• "other information about car vitals." – as I noted I am not an expert, but are these actually called car vitals?
• "flush rear wheels" – is there no definition of flush on Wikipedia itself?
• "are said to be much more aerodynamic than usual." – than usual? Could this be elaborated upon?

Refs

All sources are either RS or used appropriately, for instance ref 21 is a press release but appears to be used within reason. Does not yet pass spotcheck—no concerns with refs 1, 10, 16, 24, 29, 37 or 41, but:

• On ref 35, I could not see a mention of the tachometer.

Also:

• The publication names for refs 5, 8, 16, 19 and 40 are in lowercase; is this correct?

Other

Short description, navs, other templates and cats all good.

• Add WP:ALT text to the images.

Fixes:

• Re the "are said to be much more aerodynamic than usual" ---> I've replaced "than usual" with "compared to regular wing mirrors"
• As for the flush, the closest thing I can find is Flush door, which is not quite what I was looking for
• Car vitals point, yes, vitals are things such as tyre pressure, oil pressure (not relevant here), motor temperature etc.
• I can simply delete the point about the tachometer. In the article, you can see a picture which has the tachometer around the speedometer. It is blurry, but there are videos with it. Simple fix.
• Publication names, I tend to follow the stylisation on their websites. autoevolution, their logo is stylised in all lowercase, so I roll with that. Same with motor1 and autocar.
• Can fix the charging port bit. No problem.
• For the siblings, the EQA and EQB are different lines but both electric. The EQA line is sub-compact SUV, the EQB is a crossover SUV. The difference between the two is that the latter is slightly larger in terms of dimensions. I think siblings is an appropriate word.
• Yeah that em dash thing could work.
• Target revised sentence revised.
• I said *said to* because Mercedes claim it to be. Quite frankly, I have no idea if it is true or not. I can remove that if you'd like.
• I did not cite the several other companies because I mention the several other companies in the following paragraphs and sections. I can add one, if need be.
• I can juggle up the cell-to-pack sentence
• Wikilink climate control, done.
• Voltage sentence changed.
• Tampering sentence changed. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 23:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Done. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 07:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the changes and for clearing some things up! Re: the publication names, a lot of logos are stylised in creative ways but their official names may be different from what their logo is, so I would recommend spelling it with an initial capital. Also, the website for Autocar appears to use all upper case. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 01:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  @LunaEatsTuna  Done. I've just used "Autocar" instead. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 02:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Great! 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 03:08, 21 January 2023 (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.

Explanation of cable heating loss

Section Battery and powertrain says "thinner cabling reduces leakages caused by Joule heating". It's really rather the opposite: thinner cabling increases heating all things being equal, because its resistance would be higher. The right explanation is that the 900 V electrical distribution system allows lower current for a given power level, and it is the lower current which then allows the use of thinner cabling without unacceptable Joule heating losses. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bri Hi Bri, does the mention of lower amperage in the preceeding clause not clarify this? Please let me know if this should still be changed. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 18:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

If you mean the phrase that now reads (after my copyedit) "The EQXX also uses a 900-volt architecture, which allows for a lower electric current", no, sorry, I don't think this is sufficient and the statement that thinner cabling reduces losses is flat out wrong. High voltage reduces current, which is correctly stated, but then it should be restated by going on to say that reduced current allows reduced I²R losses in relatively thinner distribution cable. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Bri I've redone the section. Tell me what you think. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 19:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks pretty good now. I might go tweak it later after thinking about it some more. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)