Talk:Mitsubishi 380/Archive 1

Bias

I think someone has a slight bias against the 380. I have made several changes. The starting price is $34,490, not $39,000. The original sales target was 2500 units per month, not 3500. Therefore sales are currently at 40% of the original target (averaged out over the time it has been released). Davez621 08:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Marketing?

I'm very wary of the recent edits. It seems like someone in MMAL marketing has had a go at these entries. Some of the changes I accept, but I think it's too pro-Mitsubishi POV now. I won't get into it but someone else should. - Richardcavell 12:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been through every edit of this page from the beginning of the year, and I can't see a single version that MMC's marketing dept would consider remotely acceptable. It's gotten worse since then, with too many weasel words, many more citations needed (and less original research), no infobox, lack of NPOV... and it needs a makeover -- DeLarge 15:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's pro-Mitsubishi at all either. I'd say that this article was written by someone who is very strongly anti-Mitsubishi, and has let a bit of their bias through to what they've written.Sean K 14:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is dreadfully biased, the car has not been cited as a failure by any media or autmotive source in australia other tahn by this author, the heading talking of the impact of its failure furthers this bias, as this car may still sell in more serious volumes. The use of weasel words, personal bias and lack of facts is not deserving of being in wikipedia. Love or loathe the car, it cannot be called a failure till someone other than the author calls it so.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.8.211 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 16 June 2006

Given the three recent comments about the bias of the article (including mine), I've attached a {{cleanup}} tag. I have a list of references which will improve the article somewhat, but left them on my work PC and won't be able to access them until tomorrow. I'll also try and tidy the citation formatting too, but ultimately it'll be down to someone who knows the car better to give it a proper write up.

In the meantime, I've reordered the paragraphs so the articles makes more sense. Previously, we had 2-3 sections on why it was a failure before we even knew basic info, e.g. that it's based on the Mitsubishi PS platform. I've now swapped 'em around and it seems to have made a difference. I don't like putting the "Awards" section in the middle, but placing it at the end (after the ranting) makes it read like a sardonic comment on the Award voters' choices. -- DeLarge 16:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

reverts of 7 July 2006

Obviously user:Catstail feels strongly about this - his revert deleted 22 edits over the last 50 days, wiping out the {{cleanup}} tag, the recently-added infobox, the tidy-up of references to an appropriate style, and restoring several dead links I'd pruned out. The edit he reverted to also happened to be the last version he contributed. I reverted the revert, and would invite further discussion here before such sweeping changes are applied in future. Regards, -- DeLarge 08:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)