Jump to content

Talk:Chevrolet Volt/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TonyTheTiger. I am ready and looking forward to work with you.--Mariordo (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's the primary purpose/intent of a GA review, and what would it mean for the Volt page in Wikipedia? WopOnTour (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To determine if an article adheres to WP:WIAGA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.I never knew such assistance was available. Having been heavily involved in this page for a number of years, I can say I am quite impressed with the latest series of rewrites & edits by User:Mariordo under your tutelege- Thank You BOTH! WopOnTour 18:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Tony, I want to let you know that today I made an updated regarding GM announcement of the 2012 year model Volt, so please check the history because some of the additions were made in sections you already had reviewed. Also, please check here for the recommendations from WP:AUTOS editors. In summary I will keep the engine size in L, the wheel size in inches (I already changed " for in), and the battery volume will be converted to cubic feet, but showing L afterwards, since this is an American car.--Mariordo (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LEAD
  • In general it is at the discretion of the editors whether to have a fully cited or fully uncited WP:LEAD as long as all facts in the LEAD are cited in the main text. In this case, the editor has done such an extensive job of citing the WP:LEAD that it might be offputting to the casual wikipedia reader. I would suggest removing citations from the LEAD and giving the reader a chance to breathe with the basic summary of information before you start directing him to sources left and right. Make sure that each fact is cited in the main body so that the reader can WP:V each claim.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, leave a couple for issues that have been controversial in the past.--Mariordo (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In general, you are suppose to either have fully cited or fully uncited LEAD. Although the claim is extraordinary in the first paragraph. The reader should be able to find the citation in the main body if he is interested. I don't see the second paragraph being used to cite anything controversial. There are no real arguments about gas mileage and such. You can remove that too.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but based on past experience I do not think is wise to leave the claim about the most fuel efficient car without citations. If you check the article's history you will see that a lot of Volt lovers and haters (the controversy section will give you an idea who is who) have engaged in contentious discussion and edit waring regarding this issue. Also Prius lovers have come to defend the top spot for their car. Besides, being an extraordinary claim, stated right in the beginning of the lead, I think it is better to make an exception in this case. Regarding the other specs, the electric range has been quite controversial, since GM said it was 40 mi, then EPA said it is 35 mi, and GM change it to 25 to 50 mi. Volt lovers want the lead to show only this range. The actual wording was a compromise that stopped edit waring, and this is the reason for having the citation now gone.--Mariordo (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any citation that averts edit warring is welcome. Please include only those that are necessary to serve this purpose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, just for the "most efficient ..." claim.--Mariordo (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, can you provide a link to a policy, guideline, or other consensus that requires ledes to be either fully cited or fully uncited? I do not believe this to be the case. It is fairly contrary to WP:LEADCITE and is certainly not a requirement of WP:GACR. SpinningSpark 20:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where a specific policy. I have been involved in a few debates at WP:FAC on the subject. Ask SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
International units: I got some advice on policy today. It seems that WP:MOSCONVERSIONS is the relevant policy. For any measurement where the primary unit of measure is the same in all English speaking countries, English WP does not need to do a conversion, as I read that policy. If engines are measured in litres in all english speaking countries as the primary unit of measure no conversion is necessary. Same with wheel rims and such. I will take your word on all the issues below. Have a look at them all and make sure that in each case that you claim the international units exception that all English speaking countries view this as the primary unit of measure for that measurement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to the answers I got from WP:AUTOS, engine volume and wheel size no conversion is necessary as all English speaking countries use L and inches, so I will keep them as-is.--Mariordo (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need, rather ICE term removed, as per wording from the sources define most fuel efficient w/o talking about the ICE.--Mariordo (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read again, it is not repeating, the first part refers to the limited launch in the US, the second to the limited markets in Canada.--Mariordo (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would expect to know by the end of the LEAD if this car is really hot in the sense that shipments can not keep up with orders or how long wait lists are for such a vehichle. Since the fourth paragraph is rather short, something like the car has been quite popular and has been difficult to keep in stock in its initial markets might be proper. Have not read the article to find out if this is in fact the case, but I am guessing given the awards it has won.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Production is still limited and supply not enough to meet demand. See the bottom of the Production cost and sales price section. So it is still early to say and overpricing is expected to be temporal, so I rather not include such content in the lead, but I would like to here your reply on this one.--Mariordo (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am checking this one with WP:AUTOS, I don't think the engine displacement volume is converted, at least not to gallons, only to cc (I believe this is an international convention). I will back to you on this one.--Mariordo (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kept in liters as per WP:AUTOS recommendation.--Mariordo (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about Stepho-wrs (talk · contribs)'s convert suggestions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Chevy_Volt_GA?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As per my previous comment it shouldn't be converted, but the clarification made at WP:AUTO by OSX (talk · contribs).--Mariordo (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Main text
  • Again citation is quite vigorous. Although not official policy, Wikipedia:Citation overkill is a relevant concern. For an article this extensively cited, where virtually no fact is not without a WP:RS, I would suggest trimming citations so that almost no sentence has more than three citations. This is going to probably take the editor some time to make sure that he is not removing the strongest citations for specific facts, but it will help the reader feel less overwhelmed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right about citation overkill, which is the result of disagreements that took place in the past before the car was actually launched and due to a lot of speculation (that is also the reason why the Lead has so many citations). But now that the article is stable, I will proceed to clean it as you have suggested.--Mariordo (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done with the citation overkill. Please let me know if you think more cleaning is required.--Mariordo (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red Flag Warning I am dumbfounded. I think this highly detailed article forgets that this is a car article. Yes it is a masterful engineering subject with lots of modern green issues. However, I still want an analysis of automobile performance. You have to include a performance section with details on acceleration (after fuel efficiency the most important statistic I know about cars is 0 to 60), braking performance, turning radius, etc. I grew up in an era when cars compared themselves on stuff like rack and pinion steering, power steering, power brakes, acceleration, braking, handling, etc. I think even green cars must mention these topics to pass GAC. Do you mention manual versus automatic issues? Do you enumerate power options (seats, steering, brakes, windows, locks). Tell us what powers the key fob on this thing has (remote ignition, keyless entry, etc.) Please remember this is a car article. You still must hit all the standard car issues to meet WP:WIAGA's breadth requirements.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Side note For most topics, I would have already determined that the article fails for lack of breadth for an omission of this magnitude. You fortunately are writing about a subject where I want to read the whole article whether it meets WIAGA or not. Thus, I will hold off on my determination, at least until I finish my read through. By then, you must convince me that progress is being made on this issue, that sources to address these concerns are in transit or that for some other reason I should expect this concern to be addressed quickly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It is possible that you could convince me that common WP:RSs don't discuss performance. If Car and Driver, Motor Trend, Road & Track and all common RS write extensively about the car without discussing common performance measures, you would be absolved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I will be working on the missing content along the way.--Mariordo (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: And yes, most of the coverage and reviews are biased toward the innovation and green aspects, the article simply reflects this bias. I already collected enough material for working on the performance and other key features that are missing, but I also have to let you know that some of that info is there, though not organized in the usual way because of the special nature of this car. I would go ahead and add the new content, but I will try to minimized duplicating content that is elsewhere (the article is too long as-is), once I am finished please point me to info that you think is worth to duplicate for a better understanding of car performance and features.--Mariordo (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can tell where I am with my read through. Yes I will mention duplication as I encounter it unless you are adding things above my current progress point. However, since you say performance is a backpage topic for this car, I imagine content that you will be adding will be later in the article. In terms of length, the article is at 52418KB of readable prose. I consider 60KB to be the max, but you need to leave a cushion for forthcoming content. Still, making the article 10% longer would not be a problem.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First try complete, please check.--Mariordo (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see a performance section. This section adequately describes acceleration and speed. Don't cars compare themselves on breaking distances, handling, impact resistance and feature. Did you add a section somewhere else in response to this concern?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I got the data I forgot to edit. It is done now (I think that since this is not a high performance car the current content should suffice). Also notice that I expanded the safety section and created a Other features to complement performance.--Mariordo (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Terminology
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concept vehicle
Done. Regarding the mechanical connection, this section presents what GM intended to do. As explained in Terminology, and in more detail later (see details of powertrain operation), for the final production version GM engineers decided to make that connection to improve the efficiency (and that's is why when more energy is required, the Volt works as a parallel hybrid, like the Prius, not a pure series hybrid) Then, there is no need to mention this in Terminology.--03:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I am consulting this one with WP:AUTOS.--Mariordo (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Converted to cu ft as recommended by WP:AUTOS.--Mariordo (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Normally you convert Kwh to MJ, but not kW is international convention if I am not mistaken.--Mariordo (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Production model
Done until it is feasible. There is no article in Wikipedia for lithium manganese oxide cell, I found only a red link, so I decided to put the chemistry nomenclature instead. This, and the significance of cylindrical vs rectangular cells, all have to do with patented technology that is worth billions of dollars, how you pack the cells to make the battery has to do on how safe they are, how you cool them, etc, and no company is providing much details. Some of this technology was developed for the Volt! So I went as far as I could (I do have a recently published book that spends a whole chapter discussing these differences, check Bottled Lightning: Superbatteries, Electric Cars, and the New Lithium Economy, by Seth Fletcher, but I am not about to write an article about that, too technical and there are not enough RS out there for such cutting edge technology).--Mariordo (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"I decided to put the chemistry nomenclature instead" - How so?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. You mean the element symbols. Hmm. not going to check this one off, but not much more you can do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not much I can do.--Mariordo (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Official introduction
Done. I could not find a RS to make sure it is indeed on display now. So I decided to change the wording to avoid guessing, now it reads: ...was earmarked for display..." --Mariordo (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Drivetrain
  • naturally aspirated?
  • link horsepower, premium gasoline
  • "until its plug-in battery capacity has been depleted until a predetermined level" sounds wrong with the double until
  • The only time "acceleration" appears in the article is here. I am guessing that means we are not going to have a section on engine performance with measures like 0 to 60. Shouldn't a detailed car article have such a section. Should acceleration be linked?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Almost done. Would you believe it, but premium gasoline is not properly defined in Wikipedia. In principle the article Octane rating should have the definition, but the US section is a mess (and the article too), and there is not a section I can point to. The other alternative is the desambiguation Premium which has a short but useful definition I cannot point to neither. Any suggestions?.--Mariordo (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I already improved the definition in the disambiguation page and because it would take a lot of work to fix the Octane rating article (more than expertise), I decided to add a small paragraph explaining why the Volt needs premium gas and defining what is premium along the way. I guess this workaround settles the issue.--Mariordo (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am checking this L convertion with WP:AUTOS but I believe that engine volume is expressed in liters by international convention.--Mariordo (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:AUTOS kept in liters.--Mariordo (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Battery
Done, but safe referred to the margin pre-established to extend the battery life, not related to battery safety, such us risk of fire (there is not much about this from RS, only mentioned in the Flectcher book, and all it says is GM made sure the batteries won't catch fire as some laptops and cell phones did back then). So, I removed it to avoid confusion. Diagnostic is a very general term, so I do not see the need to link to diagnosis, here is used in the same general way.--Mariordo (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fuel economy
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Performance
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the second quarter mile is now converted.--Mariordo (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tailpipe emissions
Done. Now all in gm/mile converted to gm/km. To the best of my knowledge these are the standard units used when dealing with car emissions and greenhouse gases.--Mariordo (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Connectivity
Done + tense adjusted.--Mariordo (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Safety
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The crash test article details the specific ones.--Mariordo (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other features
Redundant link removed, but I am consulting WP:AUTOS, I never have seen wheel size converted to other metric. I will get back to you on this one.--Mariordo (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:AUTOS kept in inches but shown as "in".--Mariordo (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does the commentary at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Chevy_Volt_GA mean only inches or inches first?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only inches.--Mariordo (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
North America
  • check tenses. Initial production is now past tense.
Nope, GM is still producing the first batch. As per my update today it seems next batch will start production in August, I will fix the tense then.--Mariordo (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Initial production from MMM YYYY until the end of ZZZZ. It is not clear to me what initial production is. Thus, I don't understand why it is considered ongoing.
Sometimes, as it is the case with the Volt, the carmaker launches the vehicle with limited production, and that is why availability is limited or restricted to selected markets. This limited initial production, what I called the first batch, is still ongoing. As the article explains, by now GM must have shut down the production line (no RS available saying so, only was announced some time ago) to upgrade and expand it, and it seems that when production re-starts (around mid July), production capacity will be revamped (the article explains this) and this second batch, no longer limited, no longer the "initial" production, will be for the 2012 model year. Once the process I just describe is completed, then we can include the dates in the article as you are suggesting. Unfortunately, if I include what I just described would be my original research as interpretation of the info supported by RS, so I rather wait to provide proper citations to this upcoming changes.--Mariordo (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More litre conversions.
Kept as per WP:AUTOS recommendation.--Mariordo (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at Wikipedia:CARS/Conventions#Displacement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • GM announced in 2010 an initial production... this was a planned number at the time. The text needs to clarify that these numbers are forecasts and not results.
Done, considering ongoing processes.--Mariordo (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • June 2011
We are still in June, I will update all tense when appropriate.--Mariordo (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "was to come off the assembly line." still correct phrasing?--

TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Mariordo (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
United States
  • Initially comma
The wording was changed with the 2012 Volt edit.--Mariordo (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there links for any of this lingo "destination freight charge, tax, title, license, dealer fees and optional equipment and before any savings due to factory incentives, tax deductions, or other available subsidies for qualifying buyers"?
Nope, except for the incentives that already are linked to an article devoted exclusively to this type of incentives.--Mariordo (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have we linked Suggested retail price yet?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in the lead.--Mariordo (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does lease program have an article?
In the general sense yes. Done.--Mariordo (talk)
Tony, this is negotiated at each dealership and to the best of my knowledge it is common knowledge among Americans, so I do not believe it is appropriate to expand nor any of the RS goes into this detail, it is just std financing in the U.S.--Mariordo (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be appropriate to say dealer leasing program?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure (I have never lease a car), but I understand the leasing is done through the carmaker's financing arm, not the dealer itself. I can ask WP:AUTOS if you want.--Mariordo (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check with them regarding this phrase.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Monthly U.S. sales
  • Do "Volt demonstration vehicles" get sold as used vehicles or something?
I re-worded this sentenced to make it clear they are not reported as sales. My understanding is that later demonstrator are sold at an attractive discount, but I am not certain if they are reported as used vehicles.--Mariordo (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "representing 51 percent of its value" is currently modifying 33K. The sentence needs to be rewritten so that it modifies 17K.
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "increase the Volt's worth after three years" should be clarified that it is not going to increase from 33K, but rather raise the estimated value above the 17K estimate.
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Canada
  • have we linked CA$ and US$ yet?
All currencies are linked with a template instead, {{USD|..., {{CA$|..., and {{€|..., beginning in the lead.--Mariordo (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (US$43,568) needs to say (US$43,568 as of May xth, 2011 or at least May 2011) or something for clarity since this ratio changes constantly.
There is a template for this, however the adjustment is made for different years (see here), since it has been less than a year, so I would do it manually using the exchange rates for the month in the source (it is recent). I do regular maintenance to my GA articles, so I will keep it updated. See for example this table in the Nissan Leaf article here that I update every month/month and a half.--Mariordo (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand your update plans. In 2016, the original price in 2011 will still be what it was.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only in current dollars, but not in constant dollars (in the sense used in economics). There is a template to do this conversion. For example, using the existing template for $10 in 1935 is now worth: US$10 (equivalent to $222.23 in 2023). In this particular case, $40K of 2011 will be worth in 2016 more than the original $40K of 2011. An alternative is to keep everything in constant dollars, and simply include the price of year X, which will be higher than 2011 (usually).--Mariordo (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with conversion templates that convert US dollars in the past to US dollars today. I don't know of templates that convert CAD in the past to USD today. I think what we will want in this article in the future (say 2015 or something) is that the Volt was initially released in canada in MMM 2011. At that time, the price was CA$XX (US$ YY in 2011 US$, which equates to converted US$ today). What do you think?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "GM began taking orders in May 2011, and the suggested retail price (MSRP) for the 2012 Chevrolet Volt starts at CA$41,545 (US$43,568) which excludes any charges, fees, optional equipment, and before any available subsidies or incentives for qualifying buyers." is run on with the double ands plus a missing and. Try one of the following:
    • GM began taking orders in May 2011. The suggested retail price (MSRP) for the 2012 Chevrolet Volt starts at CA$41,545 (US$43,568), which excludes any charges, fees, and optional equipment. This price is before any available subsidies or incentives for qualifying buyers.
    • GM began taking orders in May 2011. The suggested retail price (MSRP) for the 2012 Chevrolet Volt starts at CA$41,545 (US$43,568), excluding any charges, fees, and optional equipment, not counting any available subsidies or incentives for qualifying buyers.
Done.--Mariordo (talk)
The style in the entire article was to convert only the sale value, not all the rebates or other info. Usually the price of the vehicle is not reported in the articles because, as you noted, they get dated and the exchanges rates too. A temporary exception is being made in articles for EVs, PHEVs, and other advanced technology vehicles because of the premium cost of these vehicles due the battery pack cost. With time this will not be reported, and probably this info would go to the history section. As for the credits and rebates there is an entire article just about them, see Government incentives for plug-in electric vehicles. Once the rebates expired probably they will be gone too. My understanding was that a section about a country could have all amounts in that currency, and the first conversion provides some reference. Are you sure you want me to convert all amounts in other currencies to dollar? Do you want me to convert all figures to June 2011 or keep the month reported in the source? --Mariordo (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Europe
  • "GM will offer in the European market the choice of the Volt or the Opel/Vauxhall Ampera, the European version of the same car." What will determine which or are you saying both will be offered.
GM sells some of its vehicles badged as Opel (Germany) and other as Vauxhall (UK), but really do not know how they are offered in other European countries. I can ask WP:AUTOS if you want.--Mariordo (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • link bumper
Done.-Mariordo (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • above "alloy wheels" should have been linked.
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to link it on its first instance above, not here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a link for skirt
Nope, appears only as red link.--Mariordo (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done using "in xxx 2011." As explained above, I can convert all amounts to June 2011, instead of the values provided by the sources in those months.--Mariordo (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cadillac Converj
Linked kW, as explained above kW is international unit, no conversion required.--Mariordo (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
EPA fuel economy testing
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
EPA fuel economy rating
Done. KWh is international unit, no conversion required, 100 miles converted.--Mariordo (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Production cost and sales price
  • Although Toyota Prius is linked a couple times above, Toyota is not. Link it now.
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conversions needed: 7 mile, $/KwH, miles/year, miles/day
Done. As explained above, KwH is international unit, no conversion required.--Mariordo (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Motors is already linked about 5 times above. Please scale down total links to two. Also the term GM is used several dozen times although it was not introduced properly on the first few instances of General Motors. Decide whether you want to use GM or General Motors throughout.
Done. I went for General Motors/the carmaker (to avoid repetition). Please note the exception for GM EV1, which is the name of the predecessor electric car.--Mariordo (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the article always use US$ or CA$. Don't alternate between these and just $.
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Battery charging emissions
  • This seems redundant with the tailpipe emissions section above.
It is not redundant, please read carefully. The second section only repeats the official emission and clarifies that this is at the point of operation, some emissions are shifted to the power plant where the electricity is generated, and continues with other controversial claims.--Mariordo (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither tailpipe emissions nor tailpipe was linked above. might help
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of greenhouse gas emission, metric tons is the international unit, the rest coverted.--Mariordo (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Checklist

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This is one of the two or three best GAC I have reviewed. It has FA potential.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    It has become broad under review, but was missing a few things that I am aware of. I am not a car buff and can not guarantee it is not missing things important to the modern car buyer or enthusiast.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    When a caption is not a complete sentence, it should not end in a period. Also, what is going on with the caption at File:Erev PHEVseries 98mpg 500px.jpg.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was that someone fixed a typo in the filename and it went red (now is fixed - I restored the original filename in the Commons) + ending periods also fixed.--Mariordo (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just became a filemover myself here and on commons. There are no instructions on what you are suppose to do when moving files to proper names. I thought it was a given that you would correct all the names in article space. You should track down the filemover and tell him that he is doing as much harm as good by moving the file without changing the file name in places where it is linked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only problematic caption now is the upper left in the Drivetrain section. It has no sentences and two periods. I might separate the two phrases with a semicolon and get rid of the final period.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I am placing this on hold while a few things are tidied up and I do some final checking. I will post final issues soon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining issues

[edit]
LEAD
  • We need to get around to reviewing the adequacy of the summary of the subsequent text.
    • Have you revised the lead to summarize all sections of the current article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did a quick review, and I concluded the article is too long to have a summary of every section as you initially proposed. As it is now, it reflects the key issues. Nevertheless, because this is a new vehicle with innovative technology, I believe the lead is destined to evolve relatively fast, so that pricing and limited launch markets will be less relevant for the lead, and then this content could be removed and substituted for other relevant info (as more long term reviews become available, or data on actual use accumulates, such as % driven in electric mode vs % driven with gasoline genset - check the edit I just did). But I am open to suggestions. --Mariordo (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently 2099 characters of readable prose. I think staying under 3000 is a goal so we are at less than 70% of capacity. This type of article should be near maxing out, so we can shoot for 2800-2900 in four paragraphs. Let's see how we can summarize the whole article and what else we can teach the reader right away:--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • GM described as Extended Range Electric Vehicle (maybe)
  • unveiled 2007
  • first series plug-in hybrid concept car
  • production design 2008
  • regenerative braking
  • What from other features is in the LEAD now?
  • Controversies and criticism is a rather large portion of the article to seemingly be omitted from the LEAD. Am I missing something?
Comments: (1) The lead used to have a full paragraph explaining how an ERREV works (since the Volt is the first of its kind), but it was considered too technical and removed. See the old paragraph here (the third one). I believe it is worth having it back, but because it is a bit too long, it will consume most of the real state limit you proposed. My suggetion is to spend the available space with an improved version of this paragraph, aiming for a simpler wording. (2) Having some of the controversies in the lead is not an easy task, since NPOV has to be maintain, and then it could be too long for the lead, and I do not think any of them is worth of being noticed in the lead, not notable enough (an example of a controvery worth having would be something like the batteries caughting fire in accidents or by overchanging, something of that nature).--Mariordo (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding (2), this is a summary. All we are looking for is 200-250 characters. Something to balance the awards section would remain POV. Saying "Although the car has been well-received by critics and earned many notable recognitions, it has not been with out controversy in the media, especially regarding instances of its batteries catching fire and matters of overcharging." This exact quote may not be the best, but we are looking to balance the LEAD since the Controversy and criticism section is larger than the Awards and recognition section in the main body. Also, note that at FA, the Awards and recognition section may need to be converted from bullet points to prose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding (1), that paragraph is 950 characters. We are looking for a third of that here. Trim it down and add it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will work these two points/ideas and the other pending task (merging sections) below tonight (US time). One more question, do you want me to post the draft here first so that we can work out the final version together or just to work directly in the article? I rather prefer the former.--Mariordo (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please post directly to the article. I am not an involved editor. I can comment on what I see.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See new second paragraph in the lead explaining in the most simple wording possible how the Volt works (For the sake of making the lead more easily understandable to the general readers, I included some links to more technical terms even though most of them are already linked down below in the article). The fourth paragraph includes the recommended summary of criticism to provide NPOV (I included what I considered the most relevant).--Mariordo (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You overshot a bit with 3324 characters of readable prose and 5 paragraphs. Let's get it back to 4 paragraphs and below 3000 characters. Here are some suggestions toward 3000:
Start by cutting "at this point the Volt switches to extended range mode, when its gasoline engine powers an electric generator to extend the vehicle's range" down to something like "at which point its gasoline engine powers an electric generator to extend the vehicle's range"
"The Volt's regenerative braking also contributes to replenish the battery charge through the on-board electricity generation" down to "The Volt's regenerative braking contributes on-board electricity generation"
"the Volt's sales price which is too expensive for most Americans to afford buying one" to "the Volt's relatively high sales price"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trimming completed.--Mariordo (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think more trimming is required I would suggest reducing the Canada details. The Volt is only available in the US for the time being and the full details are available in the corresponding section. In the same line, in the future we will not include all the details about pricing in the lead for the next launch markets.--Mariordo (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3195 so yes more trimming. Your choice. Copy paste the lead into MS word or something to see character count.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I believe it is now down to 2,890.--Mariordo (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand this comment about Mexico. Can you expand? --Mariordo (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well the Table of contents has NA, with US and CA subsections. What about Mexico? Not only does it not have a corresponding subsection, but also, the article mentions nothing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Car markets are North America, Europe, Japan, ...., that is why the heading is NA. GM has not announced any plans for Mexico, and the Volt is manufactured in the US. Do you want me to remove the NA heading and just leave the countries/region headings?--Mariordo (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leave headings as they are. If there is no news, there is no news. I am sure that if something comes up you will post it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Production model
  • What happened with linking prototype?
Done--Mariordo (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
United States
  • You were going to check on the phrasing of "dealer leasing program"
I found the article Vehicle leasing, which I believe solves the issue you raised.--Mariordo (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Canada
  • My last comments were as follows:
    • I am familiar with conversion templates that convert US dollars in the past to US dollars today. I don't know of templates that convert CAD in the past to USD today. I think what we will want in this article in the future (say 2015 or something) is that the Volt was initially released in canada in MMM 2011. At that time, the price was CA$XX (US$ YY in 2011 US$, which equates to converted US$ today). What do you think?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100% with your suggestion and I will proceed accordingly in the future (I now realize I got a little confused with this one and somewhere I took the wrong turn). Considering the next fix I believe currencies in the Canada section now looks good (converted to USDXX in June 2011).--Mariordo (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but it looks weird, they are too close to each other, please check. Also I updated the price conversion to USD to June 2011, so the entire section is showing USD in June 2011.--Mariordo (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it would look better with just the first of the two instances linked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I actually misread you. Done.--Mariordo (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tax credit is linked several times, but to different sections of the Government incentives for plug-in electric vehicles, so the reader is redirected to the specific country/region, such as Government incentives for plug-in electric vehicles#Europe, Government incentives for plug-in electric vehicles#Canada, Government incentives for plug-in electric vehicles#Federal Government, Government incentives for plug-in electric vehicles#Other states, and Government incentives for plug-in electric vehicles#Charging_Equipment . I believe this is not considered overlinking.--Mariordo (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images
Fixed.--Mariordo (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other issues
  • Link first instance of alloy wheel and not second.
Done.--Mariordo (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Genset was already properly linked to Engine-generator (see Terminology) so I delinked the second use + BOSE redirected to the correct article (BOSE in capital letters).--Mariordo (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite pleased to pass this now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I really appreciate your patience and willingness to spend time in doing this review. This is my 12th GA, and I have never had a reviewer so careful with all the details as you did. I will welcome if you can point to me the two or three big issues that you believe need to be improved for this article to become a FA. I have not tried to go for FA before because English is a second language to me, but I can ask for help to improve the prose. Thanks again.--Mariordo (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chevrolet_Volt/GA1&oldid=1075129598"