Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aston Martin DB11/archive1

Aston Martin DB11

Featured article candidates/Aston Martin DB11/archive1

Nominator(s): 750 h+ 05:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a gorgeous grand tourer, which is the successor to the Aston Martin DB9—the first FA I made. This is my seventh nomination, and underwent a recent GA review by Mertbiol for which I'm very grateful. Thanks for any comments I get. 750 h+ 05:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Just doing the image review:

All images have a free license from the photographer on the Commons. All have alt text, captions, and links to the Commons. The Aston Martin logo is de minimis and not a major part of any photo.
For the first caption in "Background", I think it would be more clear to people unfamiliar the cars to have "The DB9" either link to that car's article or expanded to "Aston Martin DB9" as it is in the body text.

And that's it, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the review. 750 h+ 23:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite welcome. No issues remaining, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

I have a few others to do first, but I will review. - SchroCat (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"at the facility in Gaydon": I think just a little more than "the facility" is needed. Maybe "at the Aston Martin facility in Gaydon"?
"2004[7][8] at the facility": same here: "2004[7][8] at its facility" will suffice
"2016 at the facility in Gaydon, Warwickshire": -> "2016 at its facility in Gaydon" (doesn't need Warwickshire mentioned again)
"a near-perfect weight distribution": the description of 'near-perfect' needs inline attribution I think
"doors ... are swan-hinged": As this is a semi-technical term, I think you need to explain what it meant by it (see MOS:NOFORCELINK – "do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence).
"humourously" -> "humorously"

That's my lot. Very little to pick up on here – another enjoyable read. - SchroCat (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. the second last concern, i've explained via footnote. Thanks for the review @SchroCat:. 750 h+ 12:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. all good from me. - SchroCat (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: pass

I may as well pick this up while I'm here - SchroCat (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting is consistent and in line with policy and practice
Additional searches show no missing sources of note
The sources used are reliable and acceptable for FA.
Pass of source review. - SchroCat (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much thanks for the reviews SC! 750 h+ 13:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

I will review this one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It was available as both a coupe and a convertible" - well presumably it still is available as these if people choose to sell the ones they own, so maybe "it was manufactured as both....."?
"by emphasising distinctive differences among the models" => "by emphasising distinctive differences between the models"
That's it, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: done. Thanks for the comments. 750 h+ 23:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]