Talk:Nissan Leaf

Batteries to be leased?

If this is confirmed, this should be noted in the article. This reference seems to say it came from the CEO's mouth, although he wasn't quoted: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=a0ohR8fNdxVw

See latest updates in the article. Batteries are included in the sale price.

New Jobs?

In the "Production" section is mention of the number of new job openings expected as a result of the U.S.production. I thought this article was about the car,not the politics.I notice that these cars will be built in England as well,but no mention of "new jobs" created there. Can we skip the PR stuff here please? 76.166.245.241 (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Batteries

I just erased the "Batteries" section because it was inaccurate and non-encyclopedic. It would be great to get some good, accurate, technical information on the battery pack in the article. Then we could reintroduce the section. Anyone? Ebikeguy (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why you erased that section.. it referenced http://www.nissan-zeroemission.com/EN/LEAF/specs.html showing the battery specs. I am re-adding some of that info cheers, Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.176.81 (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead section should contain the most important information

According to wp:lead an article's intro should contain what makes it interesting.

"...explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies..."

I added the below text to the article:

Because the Leaf is an electric car it has the advantages of no tail pipe pollution, lessens dependence on oil, and cost advantages as the price of gas rises.

It was reverted because it was considered wp:or. I reverted it back. The text is referenced. Not sure what is thought to be original research, since it is referenced. The summary text says the references are about electric cars and not the leaf. Well since the leaf is an electric car then it applies to the leaf and is not OR. What do you think? Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the Nissan Leaf not EVs. That content is appropriate in the BEV article (which already says so), but when you take that general content and decide to apply it to the Leaf in particular it becomes your OR (on the contrary, if you find sources explicitly attributing this benefits to the Leaf, then it is not OR - and I bet you can find them, just Google a bit). Nevertheless, just imaging if we start adding summaries of the benefits of EVs, PHEVs, HEVs to each of the individual vehicle articles. If there is something unique or specific about the Leaf, then there is merit to add it here. See you around.-Mariordo (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

O.K. added specific reference that the Nissan Leaf is zero emissions: http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index.jsp. Thx, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Risk of exploding batteries in car accident?

Lithium ion batteries, like laptop batteries, can explode at high temperatures, and it is very dangerous because they can't be put out the same way normal fires are. Is there any word on how Nissan avoids this problem in their car, during an accident, or criticism for this problem?

128.100.71.45 (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This issue is dealt with both by modern battery chemistry, which prevents oxidization at the cathode, and by battery management systems which monitor system voltage, heat, etc. I need to recuse myself from this discussion for professional reasons, but I would be happy to point others in the right direction. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Gasoline tank fire or explosion is much more dangerous. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

lithium doesn't explode it ignites, but car lithium battery's are shielded better. also a tank of gas or other liquid fuels are 10 to 20 times more volatile, as Lithium only ignites when it comes into contact with air (heat only causes lithium to expand it, and sony's batteries were poorly produced) Markthemac (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

it's more likely u will choke on a pretzel while going over a speed bump and die (or sit in front of your TV, like G.W. Bush? who didn't die):(, than it is for a car battery to explode in a blazing ball of fire Markthemac (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Zero Emission

Zero Emission isn't possible, weird there is no criticism on this wiki (it reads like advertisement). all energy sources emit CO2 at one point (solar panels/wind mills to produce and maintain.). Markthemac (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Zero tail pipe emissions does not include greenhouse gas emissions, just the good old air pollution. Now, if the vehicle is recharged from a clean energy source, then it is an absolute zero emissions. For the time being, there is going to be a carbon footprint. Nevertheless, this is a subject already covered here, and valid for all electric-drive cars, so there is no need to discussed in every plug-in electric vehicle article, unless there is a specific issue related to a particular vehicle, otherwise we might incur in OR.-Mariordo (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: Just in case, I just added the Zero-emissions vehicle article to the See also section.-Mariordo (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If it is close to zero we don't worry about it. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It is nowhere near close to zero. I don't worry about it since GGE is a fad, as are EVs. But it is typical of the lies and POV that EV promoters use. I shall reedit the article accordingly. Greglocock (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That addition of information is fine with me as long as it is NPOV and from RS talking specifically about the Leaf (as per my explanation above). I think that a separate section, just like the ZEV article would be better. Please take into account that zero emissions are legally defined differently in California (ZEV standard) and the European Union. The former only considers tailpipe emissions (so EVs are classified as zero emissions) while the latter considers carbon equivalent emissions measured considering a well-to-wheel assessment, which will take into account how clean in the energy source. Only when recharged using wind or solar generated electricity would be considered zero emissions in the EU-Mariordo (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is OK, as it turns out, and the ZEV article covers the issue well enough. Daniel's comment on the other hand... Greglocock (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This article, sad to say, does read like an advert. The only criticism is concerning the cooloing or some such? I appreciate that general criticisms of electric vehicles may exist in one article, but if I come to an encyclopaedia, I do not expect to have to open several volumes at once to be able to cross reference certain relevant aspects.82.6.1.85 (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Lance T.

Auto dealers are among the least trusted industry groups. So stretching the facts goes with the territory I guess. http://www.marketingcharts.com/direct/better-business-bureau-trust-in-biz-down-in-13-of-15-industries-5766/bbb-gallup-industries-least-trusted-2008jpg/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe2832 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

lithium batteries alone emit a few tons of CO2 to produce and they only last 4 to 8 years and u can't recycle them 100%, also shipping cars/shipping batteries maintaining all add CO2 Markthemac (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

when this car is shipped and in your street it has already emitted more CO2 than a natural-gas powered car will in 4 years Markthemac (talk) 02:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That is precisely what a "well-to-wheel" assessment does, account for all emissions and compares them with the well-to-wheel emissions of a conventional internal combustion engine car.-Mariordo (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

than this page is biased towards america, as global regulations basically state it isn't Zero Emission. Markthemac (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The "Zero Emissions" is a Label for the vehicle. They don't stick that label on the manufacturing plant, nor do they put that on the power outlet in your garage.

The word Emit (from Emissions) is an action verb. Just because that action had a cause that required emissions from another separate and external source, and has an effect that will enable future emissions from another separate and external source... DOES NOT mean that the original labeled object "emits". Joeviocoe (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

For example, is my left eye "Zero Emissions"? Technically yes. But if you want to keep digging into the past and future of my left eye beyond the reasonable understanding of the label "zero emissions", then No. My left eye has muscles and blinks regularly. It can only move and blink because my brain tells it to do so. The energy to move and blink come from protein and enzymes. The brain is the most important source of signals to move and to receive the optical signals back from the eye. All this requires an aerobic metabolism. Which requires oxygen to be consumed, and carbon dioxide to be emitted. Furthermore, my eye enables me to find food for consumption, which will be the cause of further emissions. Not only CO2, but Methane as well.Joeviocoe (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Bottom line.... everything could be considered as having SOME emissions. So the term, "Zero Emissions" would have no meaning. But since it does have a reasonable meaning, which is based on collective human understanding that the term is given ONLY to the object of which it is labeled. There is a limit on how far you can take cause and effect. If you want to go beyond the vehicle's label of Zero Emissions, you MUST note that by using the term Well-to-Wheels. That term exist for that very purpose.Joeviocoe (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Highway range...

70 miles at 55mph... so that's maybe 50 miles at the speeds people will actually be driving? The figures for anything higher than that are conspicuously absent... 193.63.174.10 (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, should be considered a city vehicle. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Units

Regarding units, metric measurements should be used over imperial as this is a Japanese car, and not an American one. As it stands, the article uses kilowatts (metric) as the primary unit for power, and miles (imperial) as the primary distance measurement. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Kilowatts are the standard unit of measure for power when dealing with electric vehicles and other electrical devices. In America, miles are the standard unit of distance. The units should remain as written. Ebikeguy (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, this is not an American car, it is/will be sold globally. By convention, we use imperial measurements first for vehicles designed in the United States (and in Australia and the United Kingdom prior to metrification). So for the Volt article, imperial measurements should be given precedence. Every country uses metric units except Burma, Liberia, and the United States. This car is Japanese, and Japan exclusively uses metric measurements.

Per WP:UNITS: "Avoid mixing systems of measurement used for primary measures". OSX (talk • contributions) 06:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is in the final stage of GA evaluation. The reviewer unfortunately did not created the specific page for the discussion. He left his feedback in my Talk page here. I will appreciate you positive feedback to close the GA process asap because as you both are aware, I am on vacation and my time on the air is limited.-Mariordo (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You folks must come to a resolution to this issue, to say the least. If not, I will have no choice but to quick-fail this GA nomination per criterion #5 (there must not be any ongoing content disputes or edit wars). –MuZemike 06:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Imperial units are appropriate if the vehicle was made in the US, or sold only in the US, or made/sold in certain other countries before they went metric. None of these apply to the Leaf, so metric is the most appropriate system of units. Ebikeguy's argument seems to be 'Americans use miles, therefore everybody must use miles'. Since his is the only argument for using imperial and time is of the essence, we should go ahead with using metric. As a courtesy, we can use the convert template to show imperial units in parentheses (ie a secondary system of units but not the primary). Note that the template should always use the unit given in the source material as its input (ie miles if comming from a US source) but metric can still be shown first by using ' |disp=flip' in the template. E.g. {{Convert|80|km}} to give '80 km (50 mi)' and {{Convert|50|mi}} to also give '80 km (50 mi)'. Cheers.  Stepho  (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Stepho-wrs, your contribution was very helpful. If nobody else objects I will start changing units to metric and using the flip parameter where the source is American (like EPA), which was my main concern about doing a overall unit change. Please feel free to collaborate, as I am under time constraints and I do not believe I will have time to convert everything. Also, if there are no objections I will only keep one unit in imperial system, the miles per gallon equivalent since to the best of my knowledge this a proxy unit only used by the US EPA and US DoE, though I will add the conversion to metric system. Any help is welcome to complete the improvements so the article achieves GA status.-Mariordo (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems with metric units and imperial conversions. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of templates where the flip parameter does not work: {{Convert|96|to|110|mi}} and {{Convert|38|mph}} with disp=table parameter. Any other tips? The latter I prefer to leave as it is because the testing was performed in the US with imperial units (so this would be another exception) and anyway the table is showing all values in both systems.-Mariordo (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, with the exceptions mentioned above. Feel free to complete or modify anything I might have missed (or resolve the template issues identified above).-Mariordo (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have made a request to fix the way the units are being displayed when the "|disp=flip" parameter is being utilised, but please do not let this get in the way of the good article nomination, as this is an issue that needs to be addressed in the {{convert}} template.

Also, Mariordo, I agree with the exception to display the EPA figures in MPG as the primary unit. Doing otherwise would be misleading and confusing. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

See my comments on the convert talk page for workarounds for the disp=flip parameter.  Stepho  (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, the issue has now been resolved (thank you Wikid77). OSX (talk • contributions) 21:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nissan Leaf/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –MuZemike 19:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Just to let you know I went ahead and combined a few paragraphs in as a logical way possible so that the prose looks more professional and presentable. If something is out of place as a result, feel free to split back apart. In general, you should try to aim for writing full paragraphs of prose - somewhere between 4 and 9 sentences length.
• Please update the facts and figures. Some of these events are described in the future tense which should have already happened (it's the end of 2010 for all intents and purposes).

Prose issues

• See WP:PLUSING; there are a few instances of "noun plus '-ing'" that should be elminated. (Obviously, stuff like "EPA city driving cycle" cannot possibly be avoided, so use common sense.)

Issues resolved

Not all the print sources are italicized, such as Time. That includes in the citations. Can you explain or point to me the rule for italicization?--Mariordo (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Actually, it's a basic grammar rule. –MuZemike 18:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC) I am sorry, but English is a second language to me, so I am not aware of such rule. I though that the citation template "cite web" or "cite news" did the trick automatically (the former not italicized, the latter italicized). I understand from your comment that print sources must be italicized, but a lot of them come from the web (i.e. New York Times or The Economist content not always is from the print edition), so I appreciate if you can provide a bit more guidance in how to proceed. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Ah, yes. You would need to manually italicize if you are using {{cite web}}, that I know for sure. I know when using {{cite journal}} that is automatically italicized as you said. Anyways, if the publication is available in print as well as online (such as with The New York Times) then you would italicize the publication. –MuZemike 20:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Completed.--Mariordo (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC) I know the {{cite news}} template has a "newspaper" parameter which automatically italicizes; I also believe the same with the "magazine" parameter in the {{cite journal}} template. Just for future reference. –MuZemike 21:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC) [1] - please go through the links that are in red and fix those dead links. All red links fixed.--Mariordo (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC) All dead links were updated or substituted.-Mariordo (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Check again at the very bottom of the list: Refs #84 and #126 still show Yahoo! 404 errors :) –MuZemike 02:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC) OK, now Ref #36 ([2]) is a 404. –MuZemike 01:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC) With all the shuffling, it is now Ref #32. Probably the server was down, I have no problem reaching the content for that url.--Mariordo (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC) OK, now I see it. It must going on and off. –MuZemike 19:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Usage of percents are inconsistent; sometimes you spell out "percent", and other times you use the "%" symbol. Please stick to one consistent usage throughout the article. Done, selected % -Mariordo (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC) "LEAF" or "Leaf"? Please stick to one usage (except in the lead) throughout the article. Done-Mariordo (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC) In the lead: According to the manufacturer,... per gallon gasoline equivalent. I recommend splitting that sentence into two smaller statements. Fixed, as explained below the range according to the manufacturer was removed to have a clearer prose.-Mariordo (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC) In the lead: it has the advantages of,... as the price of gasoline rises. - improper construction of a series; it reads: It has..., reduces..., and its total cost.... That final item should either start with a verb, or you could also restructure that sentence so that it makes more sense grammatically. Done. Complete re-write of the last paragraph (see more details below under "Lead")-Mariordo (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC) "Battery pack" subsection: The pack does not intrude into the rear trunk space. - That sentence seems out of place there. I would think there would be a way to combine that into the previous sentence so that there is some context provided. Done. This content was OR (so I removed it/I searched comprehensively with Google) and only left content with RS that I provided.--Mariordo (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC) "Netherlands" subsection: Leaf buyers will also have access ... without which a car cannot be purchased. - too long and drawn-out a sentence; recommend splitting that one as well. Done.--Mariordo (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC) "United Kingdom" subsection: The Leaf will go on sale ... in January 2011. - recommend a split, preferably at the including the 20% VAT part. Done, deleted unnecessary content.--Mariordo (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC) "Price, tax credits and other incentives" subsection (under "United States"): Additionally, Nissan will offer ... installed by AeroVironment. - sounds rather wordy after reading that sentence. I recommend tweaking it, so that it reads/flows a bit better than it currently does. Done and updated to present tense.--Mariordo (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability issues

Issues resolved

(Note that in the article prose, I have added appropriate tags in the article that are either unsourced, with {{Citation needed}}, or are not in the citation(s) given, with {{Failed verification}}) From the rewrite, in the "Technology" subsection, the first two sentences are not in the citation given, which I have appropriately tagged. At this point, I'm not terribly worried much about the first sentence (as it's more introductory) as I am with that second sentence. Fixed: actually I updated and expanded this content, and made it compatible with the remaining of this paragraph.--Mariordo (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Ref #61 [3] → do you have a better URL for that, such as directly from CNET? I ask because something like that would be a more stable URL than a YouTube link uploaded by some random user. Done, I found the url from CNET.--Mariordo (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Lead Specs in the infobox (i.e. wheelbase, length, etc.) needs to be sourced; but if something in the infobox is already mentioned in the prose, then there is no need to cite it in the infobox. Done.--Mariordo (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Very first sentence in the lead, not in the citations given. You need to provide a source verifying that's what "LEAF" stands for (not hard to find one), as well as the facts that it's a five-door hatchback (electric car is obvious enough). Done.-Mariordo (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC) According to the manufacturer, the Leaf's all-electric range is 100 miles (160 km) in city driving, - the citation given says "96 to 110 miles", and it doesn't mention its range while in the city. Unless there was something I missed in the other citation [4], I am not seeing the verification of this. The rest of that paragraph is verified, by the way. Done, removed from the lead for clarity. Same content is on the main body properly referenced.-Mariordo (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC) ...and will be followed by Japan on December 20. (source: [5]) - Not in the citation given. Nothing is given in that source about the Leaf's December 20 release in Japan. Done. I updated the ref but since the date is in the past I updated the content, now schedule "by the end of the month" -Mariordo (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC) ...with global market availability planned for 2012. - Not in either of the citations given. Everything else is verified in that second citation but not in the first (I would personally remove that first citation as it seems out-of-date and conflicting with that second citation). Done as you suggested.--Mariordo (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reduces the need to import oil and enhances energy security, (source: [6]) - This is iffy. I mean, you can imply that "transitioning away from oil" is fairly equivalent to "reducing the need to import oil", but I am not sure you can link this source to "increasing energy security" and hence may be venturing into OR. I'm open to interpretation on this, however. Fixed. I agree with your interpretation (there was a brief discussion about this several months ago). This paragraph is in the borderline of OR due to synthesis of sources, and there is no need to repeat in detail the benefits of EVs in every EV article. I did a complete re-write, change all the sources (as some were not so RS) and added two new RSs that avoid the synthesis issue. Completed the paragraph size with one other of the awards won by the Leaf.-Mariordo (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC) New version looks good and verified. –MuZemike 02:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC) EV-11 prototype History That first half of the paragraph The EV-11 prototype electric car ... through Nissan's secure data center to the car. is not sourced, but it looks like it's on one of the sources further in that paragraph, mainly Nissan's press release here. I believe this is now fixed with the re-write I did of the new History section--Mariordo (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Specifications Ref #42 [7] cannot be found. Make sure you have the URL right on that one. Done, restored with existing source but I removed content not supported by RS.--Mariordo (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Ref #35 [8] is also not found. I did access it without problem.--Mariordo (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC) You would be right. Perhaps the website was temporarily down or something :) –MuZemike 20:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Most of the second paragraph in the "Connected mobility" subsection is not in that citation given (source: [9]) from what I can read in that article. Price and sales Market Very first sentence (Nissan officially introduced the Leaf in a ceremony held at its global headquarters in Yokohama on December 3, 2010.) is unsourced. Done, it was just missing from my previous edit.--Mariordo (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC) ...(SL trim; totaling US$12,564) with an initial payment of US$1,999. - not in either of the citations given Fixed and extended from Nissan official site as RS (the purchase price for the SL trim is a couple of paragraphs below +$940, I kept only the basic price at first for clarity). The US$12,564 was just arithmetic (349x36) but on a second thought I removed it.--Mariordo (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC) I verified it now, but you may want to change the URL to [10] (if that does not present a problem with accessibility, as I had to enaable JavaScript in order to view it). –MuZemike 01:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I do not like that page either, but the problem is that all RS I checked with Google do not present the pricing for both trims, and actually are talking about the basic model price without specifying the trim (good marketing by Nissan). Even in Nissan's LEAF Facebook page ([11]) pricing is highlighted for the SV trim and the leasing price of the SL trim is not shown, just says it costs $940 more. I will keep looking after I am done with the other changes.-Mariordo (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Nissan sells and leases ... to reduce the price of the car. - not in the citation given. I removed The battery included stuff because this old edit was based on speculation (from non RS - blogs) before the official price announcement.--Mariordo (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC) These areas were selected because they are home to the EV Project, which was awarded US$99.8 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - not in the citations given Done. I remove that content since such detail is unnecessary and the link to EV Project provides the details with proper RS.--Mariordo (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Partnerships The entire second sentence is not in the citations given. Fixed. Actually most of the content referred to Better Place, not relevant for this article and effectively not supported by the sources. I removed most of it and kept only the relevant Leaf material supported by the two RSs.--Mariordo (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Production up to 11,210 charging stations in strategic markets in Phoenix (AZ), Tucson (AZ), San Diego (CA), Portland (OR), Eugene (OR), Salem (OR), Corvallis (OR), Seattle (WA), Nashville (TN), Knoxville (TN) and Chattanooga (TN). - not in the citations given. Moreover, that figure is also incorrect and likely out-of-date, mainly because that first citation links to the main page of that website, which constantly changes. I recommend finding a more stable page with a more stable figure. The content was moved from the first page to another page (hopefully more stable, but I will keep an eye on it) on the same website. It is now fixed and updated (you were right, more cities and more financing was granted by DoE).--Mariordo (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC) OK, it's verified, but you may want to change the formatting of the cities as it looks like it has been copied directly from the source; I mean, reformat it so that it looks like the list of cities in the other places in the article. –MuZemike 01:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Done!--Mariordo (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Marketing Other stops on the tour included Berkeley, California; San Francisco; Seattle; Vancouver; Las Vegas; Houston; Washington, D.C.; and Orlando. - not all the cities are listed in the citations given. Done, move the existing sources to the corresponding content and added the missing RS.--Mariordo (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC) I also removed Berkeley, which was the only city not in there. –MuZemike 21:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible plagiarism

Issues resolved

its lifespan depends on how often (440-volt) fast charging is used and on environmental factors such as extreme hot weather, which is tough on the battery. → That is a little too close to what is in the source [12]. Please paraphrase that ASAP. Please check to confirm it is OK now.-Mariordo (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Looks better. –MuZemike 02:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Nissan is giving Leaf customers the option of buying a home charging station at an estimated cost, including installation, of US$2,200, is directly purloined from the source [13]. Fixed and updated (the tax credit was due to expire on 2010/12/31 and was extended under different conditions). Please check to confirm it is OK.--Mariordo (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC) The EV Project will collect and analyze data to characterize vehicle use in diverse topographic and climatic conditions, evaluate the effectiveness of charge infrastructure, and conduct trials of various revenue systems for commercial and public charge infrastructure. - ripped off from [14] Fixed and updated (with existing source on a different url/not Edmunds).--Mariordo (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Image issues

Issues resolved

Per MOS:CAPTION, captions that are incomplete sentences do not have end-punctuation at the end. Please correct those captions. Fixed. -- Mariordo (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Actually, you forgot a few. Please double-check. –MuZemike 02:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Done with some re-write. End-punctuation left only in captions with a verb (full sentence).--Mariordo (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC) You still missed four other ones, but I got them for you. –MuZemike 19:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Layout issues

Issues resolved
The "Criticism" and "Consumer Reports" subsections don't exactly fit under the "Marketing" section. Perhaps a separate "Reception" section would be better for those two? A better idea would be to combine those two sections plus the "Awards and recognitions" section into one "Reception section". Done by OSX.--Mariordo (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Other suggestions

(Note, this does not count against the GA review but may help for further improvements.)

• You may want to remove the citations in the lead by following the WP:LEADCITE guideline. This reduces clutter in the lead and help hook in readers better. In a nutshell, make sure everything in the lead is mentioned in the article body and is sourced there, then you are free to remove the citations in the lead as they would be considered redundant.

I agree that it would be better to remove the citations. Nevertheless, if you check the article's history you will see that because of the novelty of the Leaf and all the hype around the first mass market electric car, there has been a lot of one-time editors that from time to time make bold/unreferenced edits. This problem was significantly reduced after I fully referenced the lead, so in order to avoid this problem from reappearing, I believe it is better for the time being to keep the citations, at least until the initial hype dies down.--Mariordo (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I mean, I'm not going to push it that hard, but I know should you decide to nominate for FAC in the future, you may get reviewers there who will demand a "clean lead" (i.e. without citations). –MuZemike 21:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Specifications" section: You have text that is sandwiched on both sides with images, which goes against MOS:IMAGE. As far as GA is concerned, you can get away with it, but you will get bit at FAC for stuff like this.

Fixed. -- Mariordo (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Conclusions

In progress – Currently going through a "verification sweep" of the content, making sure everything reflects what the sources say. –MuZemike 19:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comment References must not go on the WP:LEAD. Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 20:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Hi MuZemike. As you are probably aware I am on vacation so I have been a bit slow in attending your requests. Furtunately OSX jump in to lend a hand. This is to let you know that due to my time constrainst and a second GA that began today (see Talk:Plug-in electric vehicle/GA1) I have requested assistance form other editors from WP:CARS to contribute in completing the changes (see my request here). Until more editors show up, I will slowly continue making changes beginning with missing refs and dead links since I know the article very well and some of them are elsewhere in the article. I also want to let you know that if at some point I would have to give up a nomination it will be the other article, so please don't stop your excellent review.--Mariordo (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. Take your time and enjoy your vacation. If necessary, we can put the nomination on hold until you have the time to respond to any issues which only you can respond. –MuZemike 01:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding.--Mariordo (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

On hold – That pretty much completes the GA review. Barring any period of time in which you will be away, I normally give about 1 week to correct the issues noted above. –MuZemike 03:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Just remember that those issues that I have crossed out mean that they have now been adequately addressed. Please pay attention to all of the ones that are not yet crossed out, including the ones in which I have provided additional comments. –MuZemike 01:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. Did you check the "Layout issues" section? It is done.--Mariordo (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Passed. I'm not going to worry much about the WP:PLUSING at this point, but you may want to read that and make appropriate corrections whenever you get a chance. Otherwise, great job, given your circumstances and that this was a fairly long article on a fairly new product. –MuZemike 21:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, it was good working with you. I did some of the WP:plusing anyway (see the temporary reversal I did, but I restored your last changes). Thanks again, particularly for your understanding of my time constraints.-Mariordo (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions by OSX

Mariordo, I have completely rearranged the contents of the article. Very little content was removed, except (from memory) two of the less-notable awards in the reception section. Please let me know if you approve of these major changes before I make any major revisions to the prose (again, I have only touched a few sentences here and there). The actual content is near identical to when you last edited the article.

When you have the time, it would be good to expand on the "design" section as it is currently only a single paragraph. Just about all of the information in the development section is devoted to the powertrain and mechanicals. An expanded design section (including the interior) would be great. The actual body of the Leaf is quite an unusual design with its front-mounted charge point in lieu of a front grille, and the rear-end styling is like no other car around. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the rearrangement looks really good – at least certainly along the lines of what I was thinking. –MuZemike 07:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. In addition to the revised layout, the consolidation of section headings also makes everything a bit more readable, and the table of contents now no longer overwhelms the article. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Car size

Do we believe car manufacturer or EPA?? Or is EPA the official classifier of car sizes in USA? How is other cars classified?-->Typ932 ^T·C 19:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Since as you correctly pointed out, the apparent contridiction between the manufacturer initial announcement and the EPA formal classification affects other cars, I believe it is more appropriate to continue the discussion of this issue in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles here. Once consensus is reached this and other articles can be modified and make consistent accordingly to the consensus. And yes, it is EPA that officially decides based on interior volume (see details in the linked discussion).-Mariordo (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Plural

Leafs or Leaves? The Yowser (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It is actually LEAF (an acronym as stated on the page), so it would be LEAF's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.237.116 (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Pricing

Why oh why is there so much pricing listed on this page? Especially the Japan and North America section seem nothing more than long harangues of numbers. As for the EPA "gas mileage" equivalents, this information is going to be of relevance to many articles and should definitely have its own page rather than taking up space on this one (and possibly other electric car pages, I haven't checked).  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

True. Pricing will also change over time, so I don't see any value in describing pricing other than maybe citing the original retail price in the table and that's it, instead of explaining it over and over for each country...Net price even with incentives actually does not change, government tax credit only applies to certain income levels (those that pay over 7500 in taxes) and is more of a marketing technique than actual relevant information on the vehicle itself. Tax incentives go into effect at tax time, not during purchase. So it actually does NOT change the retail price at time of purchase, unless they've changed how federal tax credits work recently. If someone wants to explain how the LEAF works with tax breaks, maybe it should be under fed tax breaks page, not under the LEAF page, or under an electric car page that get it, since it applies to all of them in that category.

The article government incentives for plug-in electric vehicles was created precisely with the purpose of having the details of tax incentives and subsidies separate, with an international perspective, and for any PEV, precisely to avoid explaining the nitty gritty in each vehicle article. For example, for the Leaf in California you get the $7,500 federal tax that you recover only after filling your annual taxes, but there is a $5,000 rebate that applies on the point of purchase. Next year this rebate goes down to $2,500. So it is not that simple and the schemes are different for each country. So by having links in each country sub-section to the proper section in the article about PEV incentives (as the article does now) any reader can jump to the country of their interest. Now it seems logical to have the MSRP price together with the incentives.

In a more general context, prices are relevant for electric car and plug-in hybrid articles because of the hefty premium consumers pay (essentially due to the high cost of the battery - $10K to $15K?). Now, if we want to keep the article with an international scope, we have to have more pricing info and not just the main markets (the US and Japan today). The other factor to consider is that the Leaf and the other PEVs, all are being launch with limited numbers and limited markets. I believe that after the Leaf has global availability and supply (production) is enough to satisfy demand, then probably that will be the right time to trim that content and just leave a summary pricing table with a link to the incentive's article. Also, as the article evolves I agree that a lot of that stuff could end up eventually in a new article about the history of the vehicle, particularly if battery prices effectively go down as many pundits are predicting and also as the technology improves. I foresee the article will then more like the Prius article looks today, a summary of sales by country per year and maybe a pricing table for the main markets, and hopefully, a more detailed explanation on how the powertrain works. There is not much available (at least in English) today, and not as much as there is info and technical coverage about the Chevy Volt. I believe that now the priority should be to expand the content regarding the inner workings of the Leaf.--Mariordo (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Solar panel

"The small solar panel on the Leaf rear spoiler (only on the SL trim in the United States) helps to charge this accessory battery." This is ambiguous. Does it mean that the solar panel is only available in the US and even there it is only for the SL trim? Or does it mean that within the US it is only available on the SL trim and that we are not specifying what the rest of the world gets? Also, the reference doesn't mention the US or SL trim restriction.  Stepho  talk  22:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Good question. Perhaps it should read (in the United States comes only on the SL trim). I don't know about trim levels in other countries. Note: I added this phrase under my IP address before I got a login name.Stoater P (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Broken Web Reference in Nissan Leaf Article - Wikipedia Policy?

The Nissan Leaf Article has a reference with a broken web link. What, if anything, is done when a Wikipedia article has a reference to a web article that is no longer available? Does one try to find a web reference with the same information which is still "live", or just leave everything alone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoater P (talk • contribs) 17:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

First you google to see if it is still available in other location from the same url or from another website. Type the title, that usually works. If not available at other location, there is a tag for "dead link" to flag the problem, but the citation is kept. Alternatively you can support the same content from another reliable sourece.--Mariordo (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will have a look at replacing the reference. Found a replacement for one broken link, but then ran across another broken link.Stoater P (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)