Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tesla Model S/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 September 2024 [1].

---

Tesla Model S

Nominator(s): 750h+ 12:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

This is my fifth featured article nomination, after doing four successful nominations on Aston Martin cars. This article is about one of the most important and influential electric vehicles of the 21st century. This is a 6,000-word article with c. 300 references, meaning it is the longest and most-referenced article (second-longest article i've written) I've brought here. I believe this article, however, is well-written, well-referenced, and comprehensive. I plan to win the half-million award with this one, so any comments I receive i'll appreciate; and thanks for reviewing! 750h+ 12:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

UC

Lots of comments

The Daily Telegraph described the Model S as a "car that changed the world", but Road & Track called it "perhaps one of the worst [cars in the world]: unfortunately, this doesn't quite hold -- the Road & Track review is specifically about the "Plaid" version, and it's from ten years later -- it's pretty clear in context that they're talking about a) a decline in quality over successive versions of the Model S and b) the fact that its competitors have gotten better. Fine for the body, with proper context, but badly misleading as presented in the lead. fixed. hope this is better It is, but now I have WP:DUEWEIGHT concerns about giving such a prominent position in the lead to a review in a single, not particularly authoritative, publication. I'd be happier if we could show that there was a broader trend whereby critics had reviewed the Model S very positively on debut but increasingly become harder on it. We're still slightly misrepresenting R&T, who do after all acknowledge the car as one of the most important ever made a sentence or so previously. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC) i think this is better Sorry to keep poking this one, but I still don't think we have WP:TSI between what the source is actually saying and how we have presented it. At the same time, we do need some measure of the negative reaction to the vehicle in the lead. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC) I removed "initially", but i don't think i can see any other problems with TSI (it's nearly exactly what the source says). 750h+ 16:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC) The words exist in that source, but R&T are pretty clearly a) talking exclusively about the Plaid version, which we don't make clear, and b) making a relative statement that largely depends on how good other EVs have become. For them, it's largely about Tesla failing to keep pace with its competitors, whereas we've presented it as a story of the Model S becoming objectively worse. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC) Oh. Okay i think that's fixed (hope this is the last one) 750h+ 09:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC) The recent edits need a good proof-read -- a few errors have slipped in through the cutting/pasting process. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC) Fixed. 750h+ 09:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC) in c. 2007: abbreviations are generally a bad idea in flowing text. Why not just "around 2007"? done after a dispute with Elon Musk, the company's chief executive officer: Tesla's or Aston Martin's CEO? done Tesla acquired a facility in Fremont, California, from Toyota, which had previously been used by both Toyota and General Motors: a run-on sentence which has ended up somewhere strange: had Toyota previously been used by both Toyota and GM? fixed Constructed mostly of the aluminum: no the, but things are generally constructed from materials in English. my bad, fixed These updates typically include modifications to the motor: should maintain the past (or past perfect) tense, as in the previous sentence: either included or have typically included. done priced from $50,000 to $70,000: recommend an inflation template here, as this will increasingly be out of sync with readers' intuition as time goes on done The the in "the Fisker Karma" shouldn't be linked. fixed More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. I hope the article’s been a good read so far. 750h+ 16:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC) It has, though I'll admit to knowing very little about cars or Tesla. A few more: Musk subsequently filed a lawsuit against Fisker, accusing him of stealing Tesla's design ideas and using the $875,000 to launch his own company.: Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see where this $875,000 is meant to have come from? fixed Fisker ultimately won the lawsuit: can we say when this happened? Was it all ongoing while the later development events happened? done Dispute between Musk and Fisker arose after the latter started his own company and began producing the Karma (pictured).: we need either a dispute or disputes here. done Both cars shared a chassis, and the engineers assessed every part of the vehicles, evaluating their positives and negatives.: this seems a bit verbose, and possibly hyperbolic: did they really evaluate every part of the vehicles (down to the cup holders?) Suggest something like evaluated different aspects of the two vehicles. done Tesla engineers initiated a project to construct another electric CLS: at this point, are we talking about "another electric car based on the CLS"? Was it really {'exactly the same thing they used a different CLS early Model S specifications: strictly speaking, Model-S should be hyphenated here as a compound modifier. done the decision to construct it entirely from aluminum was clear: not quite idiomatic English, and it's not clear in context whether the decision was obvious (a dubious statement in Wikivoice) or whether Musk said that it was. fixed To accelerate the development of the Model S, one group of engineers worked during the day, while another arrived at 9 p.m. and worked through the night, : I don't totally understand how this is necessarily faster than having two groups working at the same time on civilised hours, but that may be a problem for Musk rather than for you However, a month after the last car—a Corolla—rolled off the manufacturing line in April 2010: not sure the make of this car is really relevant in this article. "Rolled off the line" is a MOS:CLICHE. See, later, the first production Model S roll off the manufacturing line fixed US$42 million, while Toyota invested US$50 million : as above, I would inflate these currency amounts. We don't generally add the US before $ unless there's some reasonable chance of confusion (for example, if the article also includes Canadian or Australian dollars). done completed in the basement of an office: there are quite a few possible cases of MOS:OVERLINK throughout, but I think this one is pretty undeniable -- it's the everyday meaning of an everyday word. fixed The car's launch event occurred in a section of the facility where the cars are completed: perhaps I'm missing something, but that seems obvious from the preceding sentence -- they could hardly have watched it be finished anywhere else? this is the launch event. Usually launch events take place at motor shows like Geneva Motor Show for example, but this one took place at the fac Ah, so this isn't the same as the event on 22 June 2012? Can we put a date on it, then? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC) this is the same date. the launch event just took place at the facility 750h+ 15:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC) Lots of multi-cites in the Design section, and later, make reading tough going. I would suggest that some of these can probably be removed, but if we must have three citations for a sentence, can you bundle them for readability? The method used in note 3 is a bit clumsy: you could use the Refn template for a smoother way. fixed the drag coefficient as Cd=0.24: simply as 0.24, surely? that's the general layout (it's a template Template:Cd) Right, but I don't think that template is appropriate for this use-case. We wouldn't say {{{1}}} or {{{1}}}. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC) done a graphite/silicon anode, and a nickel-cobalt-aluminum cathode: I know nothing about these, but just checking that the slash and the hyphens are meant to be different here? yep In the caption of the Model S and Model X, suggest italicising (left) and (right), as you did for (pictured) further up with the Karma vehicle. Ditto in the dashboard picture further down. done. i don't think the dashboard picture requires it extending the range by an additional 40 miles (64 km) of range.: no need for of range. my bad, done The former produces 235 kilowatts (315 hp) and 325 newton-meters (240 lb⋅ft),: would add of power and of force (torque?) as appropriate. done rear-wheel drive: either rear-wheel-drive or rear wheel–drive. I suspect there are other examples. done Intel Atom-based: endash here, not hyphen. done The 2021 Model S also introduced the "yoke" steering wheel: this makes it sound like it was the first vehicle to have one of these, which of course it wasn't, though it might have been one of the first mass-market cars to do so. done "Radar" isn't capitalised in mid-sentence. done Autopilot uses cameras, Radar and ultrasound to detect road signs: at least since 2021, Tesla doesn't actually use the radar: our article on Tesla Autopilot has A tear down of a HW4 Model S and Model X car in 2023 revealed that they have high definition radar hardware, but the software did not use radar. Likewise, it hasn't used ultrasound for at least a year. Teslas currently drive entirely by camera, which is widely considered a problem -- it would be worth mentioning this, and the many issues that Autopilot has had, at least briefly. It's a little misleading to state all of these supposed capabilities without mentioning that they, quite famously, don't exactly work. fixed I still think we have a DUEWEIGHT problem here -- almost nothing is mentioned in this section of the many reviews/reports saying that Autopilot doesn't work as advertised and is dangerous. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC) I've added some information about some of its problems, with a footnote leading to the article about all of its problems Better, though we still are missing the demise of ultrasound, and have misrepresented what Tesla Vision is -- it's a branding name for only using cameras, not (as we imply) a new type of camera. I'm also not sure we've really got the point across here -- we've talked about misleading advertising, but slightly glossed over the fact that the features which are definitely promised don't always work very well. The first paragraph of Tesla Autopilot#Dangerous and unexpected behavior, with biblio, is relevant here. A very boring formatting thing, but we should use a section symbol (§) in the footnoted link text. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC) I've added the discontinuation of ultrasound and fixed Tesla Vision name. I've added information from the third point. And i actually was to add the "§", i forgot (thanks for that). 750h+ 16:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC) I still don't think this is right, unfortunately: we now have Tesla began using cameras known as "Tesla Vision". As I understand it, Tesla never claimed to be newly using cameras or adding more cameras, only to be removing the other types of sensor and tweaking the software algorithm in vaguely-defined ways. We've presented this as adding something, when that isn't really what happened. Tesla Autopilot hardware has useful material on what happened, its consequences, and the regulatory response, which I think needs some mention in this article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist: so i've changed "From 2021, Tesla began using cameras known as "Tesla Vision", which replaced the radar system." to "From 2021, Tesla began using a system known as "Tesla Vision", which relies solely on cameras, replacing the previous radar-based sensors." 750h+ 09:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC) For charging outside the home, Tesla has partnered with businesses to install Tesla Wall Connectors to provide a charging network called Tesla Destination: the tone of this reads a bit like a press release to me. fixed the battery swap program hyphen on battery-swap. added We've given Tesla's case that nobody was interested in battery swapping, but there's a WP:DUEWEIGHT problem here -- most people don't take that excuse remotely seriously; it's more that actually doing that at scale is a stupid idea, and just about everyone knew that from the beginning. it was reported however, and that is what a good amount of sources say [2] [3] Right, but other explanations were also put forward -- see for instance that swapping batteries would make less money than charging, that battery-swapping isn't practical when you have to swap a huge part of the vehicle, that battery swapping is capital intensive and creates economic issues when the batteries lose value, that maintaining the necessary reserve stock of bulky, expensive batteries is economically and environmentally unwise. It was also reported that Musk wasn't being entirely ingenuous about the low demand, given that they set up their trial of battery swapping in a way that you would expect to generate little demand. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC) I have added two parts from there, i don't think the rest are necessary though, since three of sources did mention the little demand. Tesla claims to recycle all returned battery packs and states that Gigafactory 1 is able to recycle a significant portion of the elements from old batteries, moving towards a "closed loop" system where old batteries are turned into new ones: likewise, I think we need to mention what other people think of this claim. "A significant proportion" is WP:WEASELWORDS -- what counts a significant? done In February 2014, the Automotive Science Group published a study: who are these people, and why do they get a whole paragraph for a single study? Again, I worry about DUEWEIGHT, with a side effect that primary studies are always tricky things and we should be careful about reporting them directly, before they hit the secondary literature (not a perfect analogy, but lots of the points in WP:MEDRS apply). Likewise with the UCS studies in the following paragraph, with the additional caveat that these people are a pressure group, and are not pretending to be neutral. i've removed this, i was actually questioning this source before as it doesn't seem very notable The Nissan Leaf had the smallest life-cycle environmental footprint of any 2014 model year automobile available in North America.: why is that relevant in an article on the Model S? removed the paragraph CO2: should be formatted with the 2 in subscript. done its CO2 emissions in the United States, similar to the Model S, are equivalent to a gasoline-powered car : something has gone wrong here. oops fixed Why does MPG get capitalised but mph -- and practically all other units -- don't? fixed Stopping here for now; more to follow, I hope. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC) Tesla initially projected it would produce 1,000 units per month, aiming for a total of 5,000 units by the end of 2012. For 2013, Tesla anticipated quadrupling that. The company also expected to deliver around 500 vehicles to customers in the third quarter, with the remaining units scheduled for delivery in the fourth quarter. Tesla built its 1,000th Model S by October 31, 2012, and delivered 2,650 units by the end of the year. In the first half of the subsequent year, 10,050 units were delivered to customers.: this bit is a little hard to parse: I would suggest another run for clarity. Anticipated is a tricky word: here, as often, better as expected to quadruple... Do I read rightly that they missed by a lot -- they aimed for about 4,000 per month, and ended up with something like 1,700? so i've rephrased this. the latter sentence is correct The Model S was the first vehicle produced at the Fremont facility: by Tesla, as GM and Toyota had produced vehicles there earlier. done Deliveries to the Chinese market began on April 22, 2014, followed by Hong Kong in July 2014.: we could upset a lot of people here: suggest specifying mainland Chinese. done It is one of the world's largest producers of electric motors, energy storage products, vehicle powertrains, and batteries, manufacturing billions of cells annually.: it might be, but is this really due weight in an article about the car, not the factory? this does include what it manufactures, so the "electric motors, energy storage products, vehicle powertrains, and batteries, manufacturing billions of cells" would be parts the Model S has What's the meaning of the 5.7% at the bottom of the second review table? 5.7% chance of a rollover accident occurring Can we footnote that? It looks like they "scored" 5.7/100, which doesn't sound very good. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC) done Per MOS:CAN'TREMEMBERBUTI'MSUREICANFINDITLATER, we should really rewrite the bulleted recalls section in prose -- in particular, I would look to draw out common threads between the recalls, the issues they highlighted with the cars and the processes behind them, and their consequences with Tesla, regulators, consumers etc. i have written it out in prose, but i don't think the background behind them is too important I think WP:PROSELINE now applies in this section -- would advise giving it a rework, and trying to make it more of a distillation/explanation than an annalistic retelling of events in sequence. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC) i have added some background to the vehicle affected by the recalls. as both an influential and significant electric car: what distinction between influential and significant are we drawing here? removed one mentioned that "the introduction of certain features, such as a yoke-style steering wheel, has distracted from the flagship sedan's underlying brilliance, as has Musk's public image: MOS:SAID applies here: this is a statement of opinion. I think we need something here about what he was going on about re. Musk's public image. i added a footnote, i don't think any more about his controversies is necessary (if that's what you're referring to) and mainstream automakers [...] [struggled] to catch up": cut the and, surely? done Samuel Gibbs from The Guardian: I don't have a strong opinion either way, but elsewhere we've introduced major publications as "the newspaper [name]", and here we don't. We should pick a lane. done We have very little in the way of critical coverage of the Model S. Has any of the widespread criticism of Tesla regarding safety, sloppy manufacture and misselling of the self-driving functions been related to this car? i've added another review, which i think should be better White 2014 is throwing a Harvard error: I can't immediately see any citation to it. removed Personally, I would avoid redlinks, such as Automotive Science Group, in the bibliography: there, the attention they grab, in my view, outweighs their benefits. i think i've removed them Over their lifecycle, electric vehicles emit about half as much CO2 as comparable fossil fuel cars. However, the report assumes that electric materials are recycled at rates similar to other cars and excludes the issue of battery disposal due to limited data on current recycling practices and future intentions.: I have some worries about the generalised nature of this comment. This takes EVs as a class -- how do we know where the Model S, with all its various Tesla-isms around how it is manufactured, maintained and so on, sits in relation to other EVs? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC) i did remove a large part of the paragraph that didn't relate to the Model S and added "like the Model S" to specify that it was referring to the Model S. I don't think comparing the Model S to other vehicles that a reader may not have heard of is helpful For 2013, Tesla wanted to quadruple that. : "Wanted" is pretty vague -- I want to win the lottery and move to Hawaii. Did they make any sort of formal statement that they would do this, set it as a target, or so on? fixed, changed to "aimed". The source used is CNET, which (at the time) was reliable Tesla claims to recycle all returned battery packs and states that Gigafactory 1 is able to recycle around 92 percent of the elements from old batteries, moving towards a "closed loop" system where old batteries are turned into new ones: the million-dollar question here -- is that a credible claim? Tesla is, after all, famous for making bold statements that prove to be completely untrue. There are also some possible fault lines here -- how many batteries get returned? How much waste do you end up with when you recycle 92% of the elements? How bad is it not to recycle the other 8% -- are those the ones that cause problems? there have been no critics addressing whether this is true or not so i think it's best to leave it, as there are many reliable sources that address this. Just from a quick Google, I found quite a few sources putting caveats on it, most notably that Tesla doesn't really recycle post-consumer batteries, and that the process of recycling itself is made less effective by the way that Tesla design their batteries. See for example here, here, comments on the impact report here, and on recycling more generally here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist: I added some of the criticism from the Vice magazine (which was already used a source in the article, though others weren't reliable 750h+ 12:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC) I think that would surprise the writers of Science (unless the website is someone different?). However, I wasn't trying to find all the available sources for you -- merely to point out that a very quick Google search flagged up that there is definitely a discussion here. I'd suggest following up the angles identified in the sources I mentioned into more scholarly and scientific work. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist: added two sources. 750h+ 01:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist: just in case ping. i hope the three criticisms are enough because the paragraph was getting a bit big 750h+ 08:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist: i think i've addressed your comments. any more? 750h+ 08:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC) A couple of replies above, both new and from before -- probably not a complete set yet. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist: in case ping 750h+ 08:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC) I have a number of comments and replies above that are still "live", as far as I can tell. The recalls section is better than a list, but I would still look to reduce the number of sentences beginning with "On [date], Tesla [verbed]" to improve the prose quality. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist: i hope this is better 750h+ 09:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist: fixed the spelling/grammatical errors 750h+ 09:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC) Oops, didn't see those new ones. Will address those now 750h+ 08:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• @UndercoverClassicist: okay i think that should be it 750h+ 15:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • A few replies above. Honestly, my feeling from reading this is that, like all of our articles, it has been written by people who are interested in the topic, and -- like most such articles -- generally like the thing they are writing about. I still think that it's a little too quick to downplay or excuse the negative side of its subject, and to take what (particularly) Tesla say about it on trust.
    • I have added all the possible background to the vehicles affected by the recalls, but didn't go too into detail (I think). Thoughts, @UndercoverClassicist:? 750h+ 18:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
      • @UndercoverClassicist: do you have anymore comments? 750h+ 03:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I've just given the article another read, and made some minor copyedits. I think I am probably now at the limit of my competence -- the grammar and formatting are better, though there are still a few minor things to look at (particularly full stops after footnotes and MOS:SAID throughout). However, I still have the same impression about POV and coverage, but don't have enough expertise in the subject matter to put my name to it that the article does or doesn't accurately cover all that has been written on the topic. As such, I'll leave this one as comments and wait to see what reviewers with more grounding in Tesla have to say -- may well come back later on and cast a vote. Apologies to leave it "open" after so much work on both sides, but hopefully it feels that this has still been a useful exercise thus far. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

    Okay, thanks for the thorough review. 750h+ 08:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

    @UndercoverClassicist: now that one reviewer has finished their review (and one is hopefully-near conclusion), the article has been largely expanded in size, and i'd like to get your current opinion 750h+ 13:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

    I think I'm still pretty much in the same place: it's unquestionably a very good article, but I don't really feel any more reassured on my (minor) worries about prose and (more serious) concerns about promotional language, tone and weighting. I'm not sure I'm quite worried enough to cast an oppose vote, but I'm not ready to shift over to a support either. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

I am going to review this article. This is a long article, so it might take a while. I should note that, while 750h+ alerted me to this nomination on my user talk page, these observations and opinions are entirely my own. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: just making sure you still want to review? 750h+ 23:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@750h+, sorry about that. I've had very limited access to my computer over the last 3 days. I'll leave some comments on Thursday. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

okay, thanks 750h+ 00:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Lead:

• Para 1: "the Model S is frequently regarded as one of the most significant and influential electric cars in the industry." - I'd hesitate to say that it has been "frequently" regarded as such, at least without a source specifically saying so, but it would be appropriate to say that it "has been regarded by many critics" as such.
• Para 2: "To produce the Model S, Tesla acquired a facility in Fremont, California, from Toyota, which had previously been used by Toyota and General Motors." - Do we need to include this detail about the facility's previous owners in the lead? I feel like this may not be an important detail.
• Para 3: Might it be worth mentioning the car's other features, e.g. Autopilot and supercharging? The paragraph does a good job of describing the design/technical features of the Model S, but the consumer features aren't mentioned as prominently. (Actually, the "Technology" section isn't really summarized at all in the lead.)
• Para 4: "In 2015, the Model S was the world's best-selling plug-in electric vehicle" - I think readers might be expecting a sales figure after a sentence like this. Probably not in the lead, but maybe in the "Production and initial deliveries" section.
• Para 4: The last quote mentions the Plaid, but the lead doesn't quite explain what the Plaid is.

Development:

• Para 1: "In January 2007, the American automaker Tesla, Inc. opened a facility in Michigan" - If you're including a background section, you might also want to consider mentioning the fact that they weren't even producing cars at that point (and that the Model S was actually only Tesla's second-ever vehicle model).
• Para 1: "The second was to be a range-extending vehicle" - So a hybrid-electric car basically?

no, range-extenders are different

Oh, okay. I thought this was referring to a hybrid-electric design. Epicgenius (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Para 2: "He signed an $875,000 contract to design the car." - I'd change "He" to "Fisker" for the avoidance of doubt.
• Para 2: "Fisker ultimately won the lawsuit in November 2008" - Is the word "ultimately" necessary here?
• Para 3: "Tesla frequently tested the car on public roads; it had 120 miles (190 km) of all-electric range per charge and weighed more than the Roadster." - These should probably be two separate sentences, since the two ideas are completely separate.
• Para 4: "stating that the non-battery-pack portion of the vehicle must be lighter than equivalent gasoline vehicles" - To clarify, did Musk say the non-battery-pack portion had to be lighter than the entire gasoline vehicle?

yes, so everything excluding the battery pack had to be lighter than the vehicles themselves

I see. Epicgenius (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Para 4: "while another arrived at 9 p.m." - The arrival time of the night shift seems like a rather trivial detail to include.
• Para 5: "later withdrew from both plans" - Do the sources mention why?

i added a bit

• Para 6: "The car's launch event occurred in a section of the facility where the cars are completed" - This detail also seems quite trivial.

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Addressed all, and if i haven't then i left some comments left. Thanks! 750h+ 05:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Design:

• Para 1: "The Model S shares its platform and thirty percent of its parts with the Model X" - Not really an issue per se, but I feel like this isn't unexpected since both the S and the X are by the same manufacturers.

it would be. Different car manufacturers sell different cars that use completely different components. For example the Tesla Model 3 and the Tesla Model Y share 76 percent of their parts yet would share less than 10 percent with the Model S and the Model X

Oh, I see. Yeah, if the 3/Y are very different from the S/X, then it might be noteworthy that the S/X share 30% of their parts. (What I meant to say was that I would expect car models from a single manufacturer to use similar components, such as the 3/S/X/Y sharing many of their components, but since the 3/Y share very few components with the S/X, this goes against my assumption.) Epicgenius (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Para 1: "The vehicle's drag coefficient was improved by a solid front fascia instead of a grille, " - Would the black nose cone in the image right next to this paragraph count as a fascia? As mentioned later on in the article, the sealed-off fascia wasn't added until 2016; before that, the S had the nose cone.

i guess, i mean the image has its front fascia but there are better ones below

• Para 1: "The Model S has a center of gravity height of 18 inches (460 mm),[73][74] reducing the risk of rollovers." - Is this reduced risk because of the lower center-of-gravity height?

yes

• Para 2: "The car's rear trunk possesses 26.6 cubic feet (750 L) of storage with the rear seats upright and 58.1 cubic feet (1,650 L) when the seats are folded down." - Some Model Ss contain backward-facing jump seats in the trunk for young children, which can also be folded down (giving the car 7 seats rather than the standard 5). Is this talking about the children's seats in the trunk, or the seats in the second row?

i added some info on that

• Para 2: "Initially, the seats and steering wheel of the Model S were made exclusively of leather." - I'm not sure about this. If I recall correctly, early buyers could choose between synthetic leather or actual leather. (The real leather option was more expensive than the synthetic leather option, but they had a distinctively different feel.)
• Also, I'm pretty sure there were other add-ons you could buy, like children's jump seats and sunroofs.

i don't think these are very necessary

Fair enough - these are fairly minor details. Epicgenius (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Speaking of which, I think some of the features mentioned in "Technology", like Tesla Autopilot and supercharging, used to be add-ons that didn't come with the car by default. The oldest Model Ss (specifically the 40 kWh and some of the 60 kWh from ~2013) didn't even have the ability to supercharge. Not sure if that's worth mentioning, or if there's even a source for these, though.

the initial 40kwh model never came to production actually. supercharging was available from late 2012, so only 6 months after Model S production began. Added more on the charging methods.

According to TechCrunch and Wired, there was a 40 kWh model produced in 2013, but it was a software-limited version of the 60 kWh model. It seems like the software-limited 40 kWh model did have the ability to supercharge (it just wasn't enabled by default), so my bad. Epicgenius (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Addressed 750h+ 03:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

2012–2016: Initial years:

• Para 2: "Instead, a more powerful model with a 60 kWh model, was introduced to substitute the 40 kWh model." - I think you could still mention that, even though the hardware-limited 40 kWh model was never built, a few 60 kWh vehicles were software-limited to 40 kWh. (I say this because, in the next section, you mention the fact that some of the 75 kWh models were software-limited to 60 kWh.)
• Para 4: "Tesla launched the standard 90D and the performance P90D" - What model year?
• I notice that the article says "all-electric range", even though the Model S is all electric. Would this be redundant (i.e. could it just be "range"), or do you need to specify that this is in fact all-electric range?

2016–2019: First major update:

• Para 1: "the previous contrasting-colored grille" - The original grille wasn't contrasting-colored so much as black. If you had a black Model S, the original grille would be the same color as the rest of the car, like this.

i don't think this is worth mentioning; i feel like the customer would know

What I meant to say was that the grille should be described as "dark" or "black", not "contrasting-colored", which seems factually incorrect when referring to dark Model Ss. Epicgenius (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Para 2: "Customers also had the option to upgrade the battery capacity to 75 kWh through an over-the-air update," - Strictly speaking, you could get the update only if you had a newer 60 kWh model (and only if you paid for it, but I think that goes without saying). Pre-2015 60 kWh models are hardware-limited, and if you owned one of these, you'd have to buy a whole new battery if you wanted to upgrade.
• Para 3: "In 2019, Tesla also phased out the 75D, 100D, and P100D variants as part of the company's shift towards a revamped model range.[150][151]" - I feel like this belongs in the next section, because that section talks about what the 75D, 100D, and P100D were replaced with.

i think this is ok, since it's still referring to the pre-simplified naming scheme

In that case, I would recommend mentioning that the 75D/100D/P100D were replaced with other models, rather than merely phased out. The way it's currently worded, it sounds like the models were phased out without replacement (at least, for people who don't read on to the next section). Unfortunately, readers these days sometimes tend to not read the full article, instead only reading a particular subsection and skipping the rest, so it might be helpful to mention that they were not just phased out but replaced. Epicgenius (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. 750h+ 03:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

2019–present: Simplified naming scheme:

• Para 1: "For 2020, the Long Range model was replaced with the Long Range Plus" - Also 100 kWh?

yep

• Para 2: "In 2024, the Model S received restyled taillights." - The note says "As of July 2024, there are no reliably sourced reports explicitly regarding the updated taillights", implying a bit of uncertainty. Therefore, shouldn't this be "By 2024, the Model S had received restyled taillights"?

More to come. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

All done (with responses) 750h+ 23:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Technology:

• Para 1: The source is from 2012, and as a result, several parts of the section are outdated. This source might be more up-to-date, but it's still talking about an old version of the software. The screen currently looks more like this (YouTube link), which is substantially different from the 2012 version of the software.
  • "Below that, the second section provides access to various apps, such as Media, Navigation, Energy, Web, Camera, and Phone." - This was the case when the S came out. However, the apps are currently near the bottom. I'll try to find a source for this, but it sounds like the article is describing how the apps were originally arranged. If there's no source, we can leave out where exactly the second section is (e.g. you can just say that the interface also provides access to various apps, such as Media, Navigation, Energy, Web, Camera, and Phone.)
  • "with most apps expandable to fill the entire screen." - Similarly, I'm not too sure about this. This was true in 2012, but may not be true now. Currently, several apps (like music and camera) can't be expanded to fit the full screen; you'll still see the navigation app in the background even when expanding these apps as much as possible. The full-screen thing could probably be left out, given that it's not necessarily true anymore.
  • "The bottom section contains controls and settings for the vehicle, including doors, locks, lights, temperature settings, and a secondary volume control." - Whew, at least that hasn't changed.
• Para 2: "Also for 2021 refresh" - Should this be "Also for the 2021 refresh"?
• Para 3: "Released in October 2015 as a software update" - Although this is only for cars that actually have AP equipment. The oldest Model Ss don't have the ability to use Autopilot, regardless of whether they were updated.

i think every Model S has autopilot equipment

Tesla says this functionality isn't available for cars built before September 2014. At least one old Model S was retrofitted with it, but I don't know if this is a service Tesla offers. Epicgenius (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I meant that after October 2015 it was a software update but later became standard 750h+ 12:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I was trying to say, it may be helpful to mention that the first Model S's with AP were manufactured in September 2014. The current phrasing might give the impression that AP equipment exists on all Model S's made since 2012 (which isn't true). Epicgenius (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Done (i think) 750h+ 23:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Also, since the last two paragraphs talk about Autopilot, it may be worth considering splitting this into a subsection. Though I won't mind if you don't.

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Done with comments 750h+ 09:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll have further comments on Thursday. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Charging:

• Para 1: "The units are provided to the businesses by Tesla for free or at a discounted price." - Discounted compared to what?

i changed that to "cheap"

• Para 1: "Not all destination chargers are available to the public, as some businesses limit them to customers, employees, or residents only." - That first bit is redundant. If some businesses limit them to customers, employees, or residents only, then these specific chargers are not open to the public.
• Para 2: "In 2020, Tesla announced plans to integrate the batteries into the vehicle's body to enhance strength and reduce weight and cost" - A person unfamiliar with the topic might ask whether the previous batteries were not integrated into the vehicle's body before. Also, I think this change might've effectively doomed the battery swap program for good, though the article doesn't say as much.

i don't think so, can you explain how?

Environmental impact:

• Para 1: "In 2020, the company recycled 1,300 tons of nickel, 400 tons of copper, and 80 tons of cobalt" - US short tons, I presume?

yep

• Para 1: "According to Thompson, if a Tesla cell is punctured too deeply or at an inappropriate location, it risks short-circuiting, potentially leading to combustion and the release of toxic fumes." - Unrelated to this section in particular, but Tesla Model S owners are given special instructions on what to do if the battery catches fire. Which leads me to the point that there should probably be some mention of Model S battery fires somewhere in the article. Even though these are exceedingly rare, it might still be helpful to mention, because the article already describes some of the other safety concerns with the Model S. Currently, the article doesn't say anything about battery fires; it only mentions punctured cells in the context of recycling the batteries.
• Para 1: "approximately 99 percent or more of these metals" - Isn't "99 percent or more" already approximate? Alternatively, could you say "nearly all of these metals..."?
• Para 2: "Over their lifecycle" - It might be helpful to mention what that lifecycle is. Five years? A decade?

over the time they operate

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Addressed all, with comments 750h+ 08:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: just an in-case ping 750h+ 08:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I have not forgotten about this. I will leave some comments soon, maybe by tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Production and initial deliveries:

• Para 1: " but, from August 2013, for European countries, final assembly was carried out at Tesla's facilities in Tilburg, the Netherlands." - By "for European countries", I presume you mean Model Ss sold in Europe. yes - 750h+ (Also, do the sources say why European Model Ss were manufactured at a different location than Model Ss sold in the rest of the world?) no, even if i don't think that's worth mentioning - 750h+

Fair enough, I was wondering why you mentioned that the final assembly for European Model Ss was in the Netherlands, but that's a minor detail. Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Para 1: "The production of both the Model S and Model X at the Tilburg facility ceased in early 2021." - So is the final assembly for the European cars being carried out at Fremont again?

yep

• Para 2: "Since January 2017, the car's batteries have been produced at Gigafactory Nevada." - Were they made at Fremont beforehand?

actually they've been produced in both japan and the US, specified

• Para 3: It seems strange that you mention only a few countries. Are Model Ss only being sold in Canada, the US, Europe, and East Asia?

i added some other countries, but i definitely can't list every country it's sold in. the ones i've listed are the most reported on

I see. Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Addressed 750h+ 15:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Recalls:

• Para 2: "Tesla recalled Model S vehicles On January 20, 2017, " - I don't think "on" should be capitalized. Also, you should mention whether this recall affected all vehicles manufactured to that date. Otherwise, it just sounds like Tesla recalled some unspecified number of vehicles.
• Para 2: "In February 2024, Tesla recalled over two million Tesla vehicles in the United States due the compact size of the warning lights on the instrument panel." - Something is up with the grammar here.
• Para 2: "Tesla Inc. shares, which experienced a downward trend from July 2023 and declined following the company's fourth quarter earnings report last week, fell an additional 2.7 percent in early trading on Friday, reaching levels not seen since May 2023." - I'm not seeing the relevance of the share prices to the recalls.
• Para 2: The last few sentences could probably be summarized. These sentences seem like they were closely paraphrased for some reason:
  • This article: "Documents indicated that the update was to enhance warnings and alerts for drivers. The NHTSA reported that the font size of the brake, park, and antilock brake warning lights was smaller than mandated by federal safety standards. This improper font size may render crucial safety information difficult to read, thereby increasing the risk of a collision."
  • The source: "Documents said the update will increase warnings and alerts to drivers. The agency says that the brake, park and antilock brake warning lights have a smaller font size than required by federal safety standards. That can make critical safety information hard to read, increasing the risk of a crash."

First fire:

• Para 1: "The first widely reported fire involving a Tesla Model S occurred on October 1, 2013," - While I am pretty sure it was the first widely reported fire, the source doesn't specifically say that it was the first.
• Para 2: "25 tons" - Since you included conversions for the other two measurements in this sentence, there should probably be a conversion here too (this is likely referring to short tons).
• Para 3: "NHTSA stating that the addition of a titanium underbody shield, aluminum deflector plates, and increased ground clearance "should reduce both the frequency of underbody strikes and the resultant fire risk"" - Did Tesla end up making these changes?

Subsequent fires:

• Para 1: "The cause of the fire remains undetermined." - Even ten years later? In any case, I think this can be removed, since this exact fact is repeated in the very next sentence.

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

All done except the last one. It's one of the lesser-known fires so they didn't go any more into the case (the most recent reliable cases are primary). 750h+ 05:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: ! 750h+ 23:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, I have very limited access to my computer on Tuesdays through Thursdays. I'll leave my final comments tomorrow, as there doesn't seem to be that much left to comment on. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. 750h+ 01:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Reception and legacy:

• Para 1: "The Model S has been recognized as an influential electric car" - Personally I'd say "The Model S has been recognized by several critics as an influential electric car", or "Several critics have recognized the Model S as an influential electric car".
• Para 1: "The magazine Car and Driver noted" - I was going to recommend saying that this commentary is retrospective (since it's from 2019). However, since the Consumer Reports and Top Gear reviews are also retrospective, it may be better to move these to the end of the paragraph, and put the reviews from 2013-2014 first.
• Para 2: " Chris Perkins of the magazine Road & Track argued that Tesla managed to turn the "most important car of the century into a bad joke", describing the Model S Plaid as "perhaps one of the worst [cars in the world]"" - Does the review include more specific details as to why Perkins felt this way?

i moved that into a black quote since he had many reasons

That's it for me. Overall, this article is pretty good. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: All addressed. Much thanks for the review. 750h+ 23:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. Oops, I forgot to do this earlier. Everything looks good to me from a prose and comprehensiveness standpoint. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Much thanks for the support Epicgenius! 750h+ 01:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Shushugah

Hello, I am looking forward to reviewing this FAC.

• The last mentioned recalls are from 2021. However it is missing several in between, particularly major and very recent recalls from 2024

  added

• I am searching for better sourcing, but would be worthwhile to mention Tilburg re-assembly was done for voucher/discounts within European market

  no RS say that, but i did add a reason

• The NUMMI plant should be wiki-linked within the body. Interesting history when Tesla Fremont Factory took over

  it already is

• In 2020, the company recycled 1,300 tons of nickel, 400 tons of copper, and 80 tons of cobalt. -> Is this a lot or very little? The numbers don't convey anything in proportion.

  done

  I should have been more clear. I am keeping an eye out for green washing and vanity metrics. Article should substantiate whether this amount of recycling is a lot or not. Different metrics exist for making comparisons, e.g costs of recycling the battery pack. Disassembling the electric batteries inside the Tesla Model S was cheaper than Nissan Leaf or Porsche Taycan according to this scientific research article.

  the most i can find is a Reddit post saying that they recycled the equivalent of 26,200 cars' batteries

  Please make use of the above mentioned source scientific research article which makes scholarly comparison of recycling amongst 2 comparable competitors. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Shushugah: i'm confused here. There's no mention of the "1,300 tons of nickel, 400 tons of copper, and 80 tons of cobalt" in the research article. Comparing one car to other car the reader may not have heard of is pointless. 750h+ 13:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Inside this passage is able to recycle around 92 percent of the elements from old batteries, moving towards a "closed loop" system where old batteries are turned into new ones. In 2020, the company recycled significant amounts of metals: 1,300 tons of nickel, 400 tons of copper, and 80 tons of cobalt. the numbers don't quite match, 400 versus 300 tons mentioned in the Science Engineering article, up to 92% of parts can be recycled and more importantly, it defers solely to Tesla's claim about its recycling efficacy without expert analysis. The excellent Vice magazine source is linked as a source, but it is not used to verify any of the claims. Information from this article could be used to expand body with more critical analysis of Tesla's claims, for example that 100% of batteries are recycled in some way and note that Tesla does not specify what percentage of each battery is recycled. More generally, it is quite complex/expensive process. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  the numbers do match. The Vice source verifies the claims in the previous sentence. i don't believe it requires any expansion; most of the from that article is incorporated here, including the criticisms

• Wikilinks to technical terms relevant in each section,
• The European New Car Assessment Programme and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ratings, particularly the table feel promotional and more specifically, lacking context especially the with seemingly contradictory sections about about product recalls. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 03:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  these are just tests by official government agencies, I don't see how they're promotional, or the need to add context

  The perfect score of 5 can be explained/contextualised, in terms of other vehicles that have received same score. Tesla has falsely claimed this was proof the Tesla Model S was the safest (lowest injuries) of all competitors, a characterization disputed by the NHTSA. There are further critical ratings inside Criticism_of_Tesla,_Inc.#Misleading_safety_ratings which delve into analysis I would expect. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  added some

• Layout related feedback
• Remove "won" column, all the awards listed already won awards.

  done

  • Would remove sub-section First fire and Subsequent fires

  i don't think so since the first fire was the largest reported Model S fire and has three paragraphs

  • Autopilot should be a subheading-1 instead of subheading-2

  it's a subsubsection of the Features subsection

@Shushugah: addressed. 750h+ 05:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Given your familiarity/expertise with Tesla, I would be grateful for any feedback/commentary you have for my FAC Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tesla_and_unions/archive1. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

All responded to. Will try to review in a bit. 750h+ 03:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Tesla substituted them for permanent magnet synchronous reluctance units -> substituted it with a permanent magnet synchronous reluctance motor? The grammar/plurality alternation is confusing
• the car shares about 30% -> the model shares 30%
• First mention of the Plaid should be the Model S Plaid
• range-extending vehicle -> (uses a more direct comparison of vehicle types) a hybrid electric vehicle with a range extender
• First use of currency should specify US$123 per MOS:CURRENCY, given that Tesla Model S is not unambiguously about one country context (with mentions of China, Netherlands)
• drive a CLS-Class -> Class is an adjective here, and it should either say CLS-Class vehicle or drove a CLS (as subsequent sentences do correctly)
• within the SpaceX factory. -> Specify that Musk owned this, otherwise it seems random.
• another electric CLS -> another electric version of a CLS. (They did not design CLS vehicles for their competitor).
• The passage about history of GM/Toyota is unnecessary trivia. The only necessary bit is that Tesla took over NUMMI and partnered with Toyota and rebranding NUMMI to Fremont Factory (with wiki link please)
• This claim was independently verified by the magazine Car and Driver in the middle of 2014, confirming the drag coefficient as 0.24. -> This claim was independently verified by Car and Driver magazine in 2014.
• First mentions of 270 kW (362 hp) should wiki link to Kilowatt, same for other technical terms mentioned for first time. See WP:TECHNICAL and MOS:REPEATLINK for guidance.
• ("D" stands for "dual") -> move this closer to first mention of P85D for P85D (P85 "dual")
• 652,000 other vehicles -> 652,000 other vehicles including from 12 competitors (I first thought other Tesla models)
• should reduce both the frequency of should reduce both the frequency of -> duplicate words
• The Model S has received mixed reviews. should be higher up in the section after being mentioned as influential.

  the first paragraph is dedicated to critics calling the car influential, whilst the second and third para is dedicated to critics reviewing the Model S

• Comparisons with other vehicles. The article makes frequent comparisons to other Tesla models, e.g Tesla Model Y and Tesla Model X, but neglects to mention competitors such as Nissan Leaf even though multiple sourcing do make the comparisons as mentioned above in two sources I pointed out. I get that it's subjective and weight-debatable.
• Inside this unused source a direct comparison is made for how cost-intensive disassembling batteries components are. This could go in section about environmental impact. I apologise for my earlier reviews which misstated incorrect source integrity.
• around 92% -> up to 92%

Thematically I would like to rely less on Tesla claims, even if they're sourced/weighed accordingly. There are challenges with focus in the article, some of which I've made suggestions for. All in all, I think it's on its way to FA status. Ping me when you have addressed the above points. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Shushugah: all addressed. 750h+ 09:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@750h: I went through my feedback one by one, to see which one you implemented or didn't, since you claimed all were addressed, without expanding. Some of the concerns have not been addressed at all. In a few cases, I think new issues were brought in, which I expand on below.

@750h: For sake of ease, I grouped the open issues below this line because I note you're editing on mobile, where it's hard to navigate these talk pages. I also saw that some of the issues I raised on 20 September were raised by Epicgenius a few days prior, even though you said they were all addressed. Can you double check that there are no outstanding requests or make it explicit? Some examples of requests that Epicgenius made that I also made several days later are why Road & Track calls the Plaid model the worst, removing excessive detail about Toyota/GM history at NUMMI. The latter is now addressed, but the former remains not responded to despite being raised. Other common requests include expansion of Autopilot software, which is crucial to this product. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Expand why Road and Track says that Plaid Model S is the worst car produced. For example that it underbraked and turned the positive legacy of Model S into a joke.

  i gave one reason, i don't see the need to go into detail in the lead when the reader can just go to the reception section

  I missed the quote box inside the reception, which certainly expands on the different reasons for why the Plaid was the worst car. I believe this is an appropriate/weighted quote as it is unique, and not easily summarized by other receptions. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• Tesla also stated that the battery pack's energy content is about ten percent of a gasoline tank's, meaning the combustion potential of a single module is approximately one percent of that in a conventional vehicle. -> unclear methodology used and possibly promo without verification. Would remove or expand with independent assessment.

  i literally already removed that

  I missed that, thanks! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• exhaust pipe and underbelly -> I was confused, because I thought pure electric battery vehicles don't have exhaust pipes, so perhaps this is a hybrid version. In any case, the linked citation makes no mention of exhaust pipes. I read sourcing, but missed it if it's phrased in other technical terms. It does compare it to Nissan Leaf (later on that)

  it says "no exhaust pipes to disrupt the airflow."

  Can you quote the exact passage you are using? I searched and read both the source source and archive and could not find the word exhaust or pipe anywhere. Your inline wiki text says no exhaust pipes to disrupt the airflow. so what passage from the sourcing is backing this up? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 08:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  done

  It is now verified with addition of Ars Technica source. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• The passage almond-shaped headlights and prominent nosecone conjure images of Maserati, while the rear half has a distinct Aston Martin DBS flavor comparing to Maserati and Aston Martin DB is better moved to the reception section, since it does not actually explain the design in a neutral manner, but rather relates to both design and also "luxury/mood" of other high-end brands.

  This was completely removed, but I think it should stay, just in a different section. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• American automaker Tesla, Inc. opened a facility in Michigan. -> It was called Tesla Motors until 2017, see source here. Something like (then Tesla Motors) would be acceptable, with source.

  Text changed to Tesla Motors, but without any verification from current source, making it unverified. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Improper introduction of MOS:DASH as a grammatical pause. It should have spacing preceding the pause: spacing -for example not spacing-for example. Two examples (there are more) are "trunk"—which and model—with
  • (Unsolicited butt-in) That's only true for endashes (–): the longer emdash (—), which you've used here, is used unspaced on both sides. MOS:DASH sets out this principle and that either spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes are fine, though articles should choose one or the other. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  per UC. @Shushugah: 750h+ 01:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Retracted and thank you both for teaching me something new! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Open issues (will be moved to above when done)

• What do the Autopilot apps run on? The hardware is mentioned, but nothing about the software the apps are part of. It seems to be called Tesla Operating System, but I don't know enough about the history. Is Autopilot software a core part of Autopilot hardware? i can't find anything about this Later in article, it's mentioned "over the air software updates", so would be interesting for understanding.

  all has been addressed, but the green text i added

  Perhaps QRep2020 could chime in, as author of Autopilot hardware. From what I've read, the Tesla infotainment system is based off Ubuntu, a flavor of Linux OS, whereas Tesla OS is something else, but I am not finding reliable sources easily. There's a ton of cruft/blogs out there adding to the noise when searching. Better to leave it out for now, and save it for a task for the future. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know offhand. I'll see what I can find, but tabling it for now makes the most sense. QRep2020 (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• After purchasing a CLS, they disassembled it, modified the Roadster's battery pack, cut out the CLS's floor, and integrated it with the battery pack. -> Make it grammatically more explicit that they mixed/match or incorporated a Tesla Roaster battery pack into the CLS. Also good to introduce earlier here that the CLS were gasoline vehicles, instead of later down the paragraph. The way it reads right now, the Roaster is part of every CLS vehicle, when it is actually mixing two different company and battery types together.

  Now the grammar in your edit response is incorrect and repetitive CLS—a gasoline-powered vehicle—they disassembled it, modified the battery pack of a Tesla Roadster's battery pack, cut out the CLS's floor, and integrated the CLS with the battery pack.

i think "After purchasing a CLS, they disassembled it, modified the battery pack of a Tesla Roadster's battery pack, cut out the CLS's floor, and integrated it with the battery pack." was perfectly understandable. i'm going to leave it as this

• Revisit current usage of about/approximate and other percentages throughout article. Sometimes approximations are used for trivial matters like "approximately three months", yet with high degree of specificity Holzhausen designed 95% of... which can be replaced with Holzhausen designed the..

  There are nine mentions of about and six mentions of approximately. Could use more variation and or be removed completely in many cases. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  okay, every case of the two words is used correctly 750h+ 13:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Shushugah: 750h+ 13:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Weak support I am new to reviewing FACs so my feedback with a pinch of salt. I very much believe that the nominator has generally tried to address every feedback I gave. However, there were multiple requests I made that have been simply declined without effort to meet mid-way or done with the bare minimum, for example simply removing interesting claims instead of searching for further sourcing. I have tried to ensure that sourcing and verification remain. The example of exhaust pipe were I asked repeatedly where it was verified, only for it to be added on third inquiry was concerning. I am willing to assume good faith, that this is not an issue elsewhere, as I have not found that to be the case in the sources I checked. I am sorry this is not fully a cheery note, but I am in good faith trying to support with constructive feedback and AGF on my part, by giving a support, albeit a weaker one. All in all, a big congratulations on significantly improving an article on one of the most important vehicles in the 21st century! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Further comments

Sorry for longer comment here, but I want to indicate it is not a matter of one or two examples, but an in-depth review by you would be helpful. Without going into the more technical claims, I looked at some of the business/simpler claims.

It should be immediately obvious to the reader, what source is being used to verify what claim. When a passage has 3 sources, it either indicates that all three sources verify exact same thing, in which case the best source is preferred (especially for non controversial claims), or that there are contradicting claims, or mix-matching claims. In the case of mix-matching claims, that can be appropriate, but better to then directly place the inline text closer to the claim, instead of the end of a sentence/paragraph.

I will not read each/every pair of sourcing because that is a big ask of the reviewer before a nominator says it is ready, but an explanation why two or three sources are needed for each and every one of the following claims would help. Sometimes it's justified, but I am surprised in the following cases 13 cases:

• In 2007, Musk appointed Henrik Fisker, known for his work with Aston Martin (2 sources)
• as the lead designer of the WhiteStar project (3 sources)
• and debuted the Fisker Karma in 2008, at the North American International Auto Show. (2 sources)
• Musk subsequently filed a lawsuit against Fisker, accusing him of stealing Tesla's design ideas and using the $875,000 to launch his own company. (2 sources)
• Fisker won the lawsuit in November 2008, and an arbitrator ordered Tesla to reimburse Fisker's legal fees and declared Tesla's claims to be without merit. (2 sources)
• In August 2008, Musk appointed Franz von Holzhausen as the project's lead designer. (2 sources)
• Tesla debuted a prototype version of the Model S in Hawthorne, California, on March 26, 2009 (3 sources)
• Tesla initially intended to manufacture the Model S in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and later in San Jose, California, but later withdrew from both plans mainly due to financial problems (2 sources)
• After the Great Recession, GM found itself trying to recover from bankruptcy. It decided to abandon the facility in 2009, with Toyota soon following. (2 sources)
• However, a month after the last car was produced at the manufacturing line in April 2010, Toyota and Tesla announced a partnership and the transfer of the factory. Tesla agreed to purchase a significant portion of the facility for $42 million (equivalent to $58,683,351 in 2023), while Toyota invested $50 million (equivalent to $69,861,132 in 2023) in Tesla for a 2.5 percent stake in the company (2 sources)
• On June 22, 2012, Tesla invited its employees, select customers, and the press to watch the first production Model S roll off the manufacturing line in Fremont. (3 sources)
• Initially, the seats and steering wheel of the Model S were offered in both synthetic and non-synthetic leather options. However, in 2017, following a request from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to become the first cruelty-free automaker, Tesla switched exclusively to synthetic leather. (3 sources)
• In 2014, Tesla discontinued the P85, replacing it with the P85D ("D" stands for "dual"). (3 sources)

• @Shushugah: what really stood out to me was "It should be immediately obvious to the reader, what source is being used to verify what claim.". Is this a policy, because i don't remember it being one? I have fixed your three-overcite issues, since I have already fixed a good number of them prior with Femke's. Two successive cites isn't overciting.

  WP:FACRITERIA 1C: well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; (emphasis mine). It does not cite a hard and fast rule, since it's contextual. Sometimes it is appropriate for a paragraph to be supported by one source and in other cases multiple sources is valid. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The claims are verified by the sources at the end. I don't need to verify every single claim. 750h+ 12:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing

• Wiki link authors when they exist e.g Lora Kolodny

  done

• Vance 2016, p. 273. is used twice in a consecutive sentence

  done

• Vance 2016, p. 274. and Vance 2016, p. 273-274. are used afterwards as well. It is a longer paragraph that could also use Vance 2016, p. 273-274. (and special care must be taken that it is paraphrased appropriately
• 2014 Tesla Model S interior, cargo space & seating". U.S. News and World Report. is duplicated twice

  no it isn't

  Trout me,

• 2020 Tesla Model S prices, reviews, and photos is duplicated twice

  no it isn't

  WP:TROUT me. I misread the two different years 2020/2021 as being the same. What partly threw me off, is the 2021 version was published in Brady, Duncan (November 20, 2020) while 2020 was published in Brady, Duncan (June 20, 2020)

• Linked sources, for example Kwanten, Alex (February 20, 2024). "2024 Tesla Model S Review, Pricing, & Pictures and 2024 Tesla Model S interior, cargo space & seating are written by same author. One is a sub-page of the other. Keeping them as separate sources isn't bad but then copy over same author/published date and title to reflect this. Open to other ideas to show it's same review.

Speeds This is excessively detailed and not necessarily interesting for readers. The speeds of the first and latest models would be sufficient, but we don't need a year by year update of every single speed range of each model. Wikipedia should be prose friendly, not an indiscriminate database for technical specs. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll address this tomorrow or later today 750h+ 01:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's excessively detailed. Unlike other articles like this which include weight, 0-60, top speed, consumption and battery cell type alongside the power and torque specs, this one only includes the power, torque, speed and 0-60, making less excessively detailed in the form of prose. I also don't see how a few paragraphs makes it excessively detailed, but might just be me. 750h+ 06:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I did not find that engaging to read either. It's difficult as a reader to know what actually changed with that much information. Did the car become more dangerous with a faster accelleration? Or did it significantly reduce range anxiety with a larger battery? Etc. What are the highlights of the upgrade? (P.S. for accessibility, avoid linking words like "here"). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

OK. If that's an actual problem then I will remove it. 750h+ 07:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. 750h+ 08:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Review by Femke

• There are some issues with overcitation. For instance, "The Model S is the company's second vehicle and is, as of 2022, its longest-produced model" only requires two sources, the 2020 source adds nothing.

fixed

That was just one example. Please have another look over the article, to see whether you need three citations for uncontroversial statements elsewhere too. Was it controversial that Holzhausen was the lead designer, that the body is made mostly out of aluminium? The range is controversial, as the rated range is typically higher than the actual range. Is the range you give the actual or rated range, and what is the approximate real range? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Femke: i've fixed most cases of overcitation, not extensively in the "Models" section because there could be three or more specs needed (horsepower, torque, introduction/discontinuation, etc) 750h+ 10:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Britain and Europe. Did you mean Britain and the EU? UK is still part of Europe.

fixed

• The numbers in the production section come over as a bit boring. Do we need Tesla's own quarterly expectations? "The company also expected to deliver around 500 vehicles to customers in the third quarter, with the remaining units scheduled for delivery in the fourth quarter." If we remove that sentence, the reader can more easily compare Tesla's projections with actual deliveries.

removed

• "It is one of the world's largest producers of electric motors, energy storage products, vehicle powertrains, and batteries, manufacturing billions of cells annually" sounds promotional (people have no idea if billions of cells is a lot or "normal"), and it's quote from Tesla, unattributed. This is a copyvio concern, so please double check you've not done this elsewhere. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Femke: any more comments? 750h+ 00:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not planning to do a full review here, but it's too easy to find issues and nitpicking still.

• The claim that the battery had small amounts of cobalt and nickel is not verified by the source, as the source does not mention Tesla. My understanding is that NCA batteries have substantial nickel and cobalt shares.

  what it did verify was the which has been identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as having a high environmental impact due to the toxicity of their extraction and refining processes. I've also minorly changed that to verify what is said in the source.

  And you've introduced another issue with the new sourcing. The source about cobalt is fair, as it applies to all Tesla cars. The CNN article does not mention model S, and also says these batteries are used in most of their standard range cars, not all. It also contradicts the design section, which says "and a nickel-cobalt-aluminum cathode", without noting that there has been a possible switch to LFP batteries. NCA batteries have a lot of nickel, so I think this is false for at least a subset of model S.

  seems like this one's causing issues so I'll remove it.

  This still contradicts the source. BNEF says: "Tesla currently uses the nickel rich nickel-cobalt-aluminum cathode chemistry, which has a low cobalt content of about 5%". So it's untrue that nickel content was low in their NCA batteries. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Furthermore, the new source you added supporting "However, since January 2021, Tesla has completely stopped using nickel and cobalt in its lithium-ion batteries" fails verification in two ways. One: it's a future-looking source, stating the intention to stop using cobalt. And 2) it doesn't say it's going to stop nickel, only cobalt. This could be via a new type of NCA battery with nickel. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  OK. I added the CNN source back but to verify this statement. 750h+ 08:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Which I objected to before, as it does not verify the statement either. Quote from CNN source: "Tesla .. said in April [2022] that nearly half of its vehicles sold in the first three months of the year do not include nickel or cobalt.", which is very different from the statement that they succeeded already in January 2021. I'll make some direct edits to the text, as this article is read too much to wait for the FAC process to sort this out. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  whoops, my mistake 750h+ 16:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• It's not clear from the text that the MIT magazine article is written by Tesla's former TCO. It's not the opinion or editorial of the magazine, but of an individual closely related to Tesla. Language as "indefinitely" sounds a bit promotional from that source. The text here is again too closely paraphrased. It is also not a criticism, but a rhetorical tool to call it unintuitive.

  The article was not written by Tesla's CTO, it was written by Casey Crownhart, and it gives JB Straubel's (Tesla's CTO) opinion on battery recycling

  Fair. Still, the key point for our readers is that you take a quote by Straubel as truth, without letting the readers know there is a COI here. Better to find another source on this. Close paraphrasing is also unresolved. The sentence order is similar, most of what you've done is switching out synonyms and removing the first person.

  The magazine MIT Technology Review criticized the lack of intuitiveness in the discussion surrounding the high level of reusability associated with the metals within the batteries. All of the materials incorporated into a battery and an electric vehicle remain present and intact throughout their lifecycle. These materials do not undergo degradation or compromise; approximately all of these metals can be recycled and reused an indefinitely high number of times—potentially hundreds or even thousands of cycles

  I'll fixe this soon.

  But something that isn’t intuitive is just what a high level of reusability the metals inside of a battery have. All of those materials we put into a battery and into an EV don’t go anywhere. They’re all still there. They don’t get degraded, they don’t get compromised—99% of those metals, or perhaps more, can be reused again and again and again. Literally hundreds, perhaps thousands of times.

  I'm confused what you want me to do here, that's what the source says. I also fixed the copyvio writing.

  There are three POV issues remaining. The first one is that you attribute wrong. There is a difference between the opinion of MIT Magazine and the person they interview. You make it sound like this is MIT's opinion (independent), rather than Straubel's. The second one is that point out is a slightly a non-neutral synonym of said. WP:UNDUE weight on a primary source is the last one. Preferable, you find a different source that's independent. If you want to use this source, the following is less bad:

  "According to Tesla's former CTO JB Straubel, Tesla's batteries can be recycled hundreds of times or even more." Just that single sentence, which is arguably too much already. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  I’ve implemented your suggestions. I prefer to use this source, if that’s fine. 750h+ 16:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  You've implemented 25% of my suggestions, and seemingly reintroduced an error. I don't see Straubel criticising recyling in that source. The volume of text is still too much: there is undue attention to a primary source, and it's better to have either 0 or 1 sentence from it. It still sounds like corporate fluff unfortunately. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Okay Femke, I have

  • removed the “criticised” part
  • have removed two sentences just so there’s one sentence

  What do we think? 750h+ 16:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• The statement that production emissions are 68% higher needs a page number. A quick search in that document seems to imply it's a more generic number than the text implies for EVs.

done

• However, the report assumes that electric materials are recycled at rates similar to other cars and excludes the issue of battery disposal due to limited data on current recycling practices and future intentions --> It now implies you're talking about the IEA results, rather than the older UCS results.

fixed

• Throughout, do we need exact dates (On April 20, 2017 rather than "in April 2017"). To me, this is unnecessary details which make it tough to read the article.

i'm a bit confused how it'll make it tough to read. if it's something like "May 10, 2013, and June 8, 2013, one might think that their vehicle manufactured on May 8 was part of the recall.

• The currency conversions have false precision. Please use the same precision as the original (42 million --> 59 million).

  how do I do this? i've been trying using instructions from the Template:Inflation page but can't seem to figure out how.

  Template:Inflation#Very_large_results. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Done, if this looks fine. 750h+ 08:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Overall, without doing a full review, I regretfully leaning oppose as issues with neutrality and copyright are difficult to address at FAC stage. For next time, it would be good to slow down, nominate for GA first (I also nommed too fast when I started in 2014). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Femke: with responses 750h+ 00:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

(A small accessibility issue: when you indent, please continue the same style as before. So * is followed by *:, rather than ::. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Will do. I've addressed one of your response, but I'll address the others tomorrow or in the coming days. 750h+ 14:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Coord note

I think Femke has hit the nail on the head. FAC -- and WP as a whole -- is not a race, and the level of commentary above indicates the article is undercooked. We don't have consensus for promotion over a month after the nomination opened, and we're unlikely to achieve that soon. Some of our most experienced editors put articles through GAN or PR or both before FAC, and I'd strongly recommend that (as I have previously) before any future nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.