Wikipedia:Peer review/Mitsubishi i/archive1

Mitsubishi i edit

I've been working on this in little spurts for a while. Given that it's a fairly new car, I think pretty much all that can be said about it is there, except perhaps for production/sales data which I hope will become available in the next few months. It's mostly prose, contains no bullet points or tables, has free images except for two concept vehicles where I've justified their fair use, is extensively referenced and wikilinked, etc etc. I think it's GA material (though too short for anything more), but I've been told peer reviewed articles have a better chance of achieving this. Any feedback welcome, although of course fawning praise is always preferred... --DeLarge 12:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very nice article. Congratulations! The only things I could find to complain about is that per WP:MOS your references should be in a section called == References == - not "Footnotes" - I fixed that one. I think you also need to put non-metric equivalents of units in the infobox and elsewhere in the article - you got most of them - but there are quite a few you missed. (Yes, I know it's a pain - yes, it makes the article look ugly - and yes, I prefer metric too - but a large fraction of our readership are ill-educated Americans who don't grok metric stuff and need imperial units too.) With those changes, you should be able to get through WP:GAC easily. WP:FAC is harder because of a noticable bias against very short articles. However, there is no specific WP:FA rule about minimum article length and so long as you've covered the topic adequately there is no theoretical reason why you couldn't do it. You should probably get it into the Wikiproject Automobiles quality rating system too - once you have WP:GA, you should get a 'GA-quality' or perhaps even an 'A-quality' sticker. SteveBaker 15:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I can't find much about the references heading except in Wikipedia:Citing sources#Footnotes which suggests "notes" or "references". I used to use ==References== until I expanded the Mitsubishi Motors article, which had about 40 cited footnotes and 6 other sources; I split the section in two, with ===Citations=== and ===References=== as subheaders within ==Footnotes==. No matter, it's not an issue.

As for imperial measurements... harrumphh. I'd be a bit more inclined to do so if "they" weren't so pig ignorant about putting metric measurements in U.S.-centric articles themselves. Especially since this is a Japanese-market car which will likely never make it near the Americas. However (mutter, grumble), since you asked nicely (mutter, grumble)...

Not too worried about FA status, to be honest. I think it's wayyy too short for that. Even if it's not far off the size of Mini Moke and (especially) Talbot Tagora, I think it needs much more content to be "comprehensive". I'm hoping MMC will publish detailed production/sales statistics within the next 2-3 months, and if they do I'll be able to flesh out the article a bit more. Maybe I'll see if another Commons pic or two can pad out the byte count...

Cheers anyway. I'll get on to doing the (mutter, grumble) imperial measurements just now. --DeLarge 16:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm - I'd forgotten how short Talbot Tagora was. This article is 14.6kB, Talbot Tagora is 14.9kB and Mini Moke (which isn't FA yet - but hasn't had a single significant objection so far) is 18.1kB. Maybe the FAC folks are mellowing on the issue of article length? In the end, if you've said all that needs to be said then there is a lot to be said for keeping it brief. SteveBaker 23:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 21:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

APR suggestions, struck through when completed:

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?] Done, although I prefer the old lead with just one paragraph.
~~When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).~~ Just the one, fixed.
~~Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]~~ A bit vague, but I think the writing's OK.

Copy/pasted from here. --DeLarge 12:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]