Wikipedia:Featured article review/Holden Commodore (VE)/archive1

Holden Commodore (VE)

Holden Commodore (VE) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article review/Holden Commodore (VE)/archive1

Notified: OSX, WikiProject Automobiles

Review section

FAR notice left on talk page on 23 January by SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) stating: "There is a good deal of uncited text, and this article is not in compliance with WP:NOTPRICE." These issues are still extant and there has been no effort to improve the article, so here we go. buidhe 00:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe The Ute section could probably need a few citations and the prices should be removed, the other two sections look fine to me. What's the quota of references to text you need?  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers: I've taken the liberty of copying your comment from user talk page. This is the proper place for such discussion. Per the FA criteria, inline citaitons are generally expected for all information. With an article this long, general references are not sufficient as the reader does not know where to find the info, violating WP:V. buidhe 04:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Review by RetiredDuke

• This article has 60(!) images, and I can't find justification to include them all. The "Models" section full-on looks like a car catalogue. More important than that though, these pictures were not in the article when it was promoted, so their copyright status need to be checked.
• I cannot find references for the fuel consumption and the production years data on the table at the end of the "Powertrains" section. Looked for it in the text and I can't find them anywhere. Also, this table has notes masquerading as references, such as "reference" 75: "Fuel consumption figures are measured in accordance with the ADR 81/01 (2006–2009) and ADR 81/02 (2009 onwards) standard. Fuel economy figures may differ between body styles and specification levels." Sources for all this data?
• Many, many unsourced paragraphs, particularly in the "Models" and "HSV range (E Series)" sections.
• The table at the "Production" section is largely unsourced.
• The table "Total production by colour option" is completely unsourced.
• Lots of price figures in the text, in violation of WP:NOTPRICE.
• Random spotcheck:
  • "Reportedly,[113] Holden Special Vehicles offered the pre-order of build no. 427 (uniquely painted in "Panorama" silver) to the Cairns Monaro collector Shawn Ryan, who purchased the 2002 HRT 427 coupe for $920,000 in 2008." - Reference 113 makes no mention of Shawn Ryan, it says "Chooka, who prefers not to reveal his real name".
  • "The HSV W427 will be noted in TWR / HSV history as the only car to which Tom Walkinshaw 'personally' attached his name. It was not the first Holden Commodore-based vehicle to be powered by a 7.0L LS7 V8 engine as that honour went to the more affordable Corsa Specialised Vehicles GTS.[114]" - The citation at the end implies that this full paragraph is covered. I read the link and there's no mention of Tom Walkinshaw anywhere to cover for the first sentence.
• "Will be available in North America in July 2015." - ??
• "The judges gave preference to the SS the second-time-round because .[90]" - That's it, that's the sentence.
• "The colours were Heron White, Sizzle, Karma, Nitrate, Alto Grey, Phantom and Mirage Glow. Satellite Navigation was available as an option." - This is full catalogue territory, in my opinion.

Summary: The main issue I have is with the severe lack of citations, but the prose also falls short of FA standards, I think. Lots of small stuff to be corrected and fluff to be trimmed. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delist. Needing additional references. Unsourced statements, paragraphs and sections. DrKay (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delist, issues raised on 23 January, nothing happening towards improvements needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delist unless improvements are forthcoming for reasons discussed above. buidhe 17:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delist - the article does not meet the FA criteria, as detailed above. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)