Talk:Aston Martin DB11

Page Deletion

The Draft page of Aston Martin DBS Superleggera should be deleted as it does not meet Wikipedia quality standards and is unnecessary as the specific model is mentioned in this article. U1Quattro (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

I'm late to notice this since it wasn't on my watchlist but, U1Quattro decided to replace a perfectly fine factory spec image with one of the special variant ones. There several problems with this, mostly the image has bad composition, it overly reflective and there already a AMR used in the article. He also done the edit without stating a reason why, keep in mind U1Quattro has been having a grudge against me in the past so his image replacements can be a little bias-based. What I don't want is his habit of gish galloping and overwhelm the reader by a dozen different other images rather then discussing the ones in the original subject as per the the Toyota Hilux talkpage. Thoughts? --Vauxford (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Existing image

U1Qauttro's replacement

I prefer the image of the silver car, mostly because of the angle being a bit better and showing more of the front. I don't think the other one being an AMR matters at all, the only difference visible are the wheels. Toasted Meter (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I prefer that of the silver car as well. The sun angle and reflections on the black car are distracting to the extreme. While the silver car's background isn't ideal, that picture does a much better job of depicting the car itself. --Sable232 (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The fact that Vauxford links "his own" pictures to wikipedia entries on an industrial scale, and has pasted this one over ten different language versions of wikipedia, suggests that this discussion is more about Vauxford's destructive vanity project arrogance than about picture quality. This behavio(u)r simply undermines the collaborational approach that wikipedia needs if it is to improver. And it discourages other people from bothering to upload decent pictures at all, which means that for cars that are sold in England, we are increasingly stuck with a uniform splurge of relatively mediocre ones.

That said (written), in this case the picture of the silver car is at a better angle and has less zoom distortion. And it doesn't suffer from those pesky "black car challenges" (hidden panel gaps and distracting reflections etc). The fellow has finally bothered to wait till the sun was in more or less the right place. It's a slight pity a about the fiddly background and the reflections, but there are many around that are far far worse. Hallelujah, albeit not unqualified! And with an Aston Martin it seems likely that someone somewhere will come up with a better picture before too long because these cars attract enthusiasts. Charles01 (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

DBS Superlergerra

Since the Aston Martin DBS Superlegerra is it's own model, I feel it deserves a page of it's own. The car is a replacement for the outgoing Aston Martin Vanquish rather than just an updated DB11. User:MichaelCorleone7 (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2019 (GMT)

"Aston Martin DB11 (redirect)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Aston Martin DB11 (redirect). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 28#Aston Martin DB11 (redirect) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aston Martin DB11/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: 750h+ (talk · contribs) 10:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Mertbiol (talk · contribs) 16:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I have read through this very interesting article. It's well written and generally very clear. I have queries on some of the citations and some suggestions for improving the text (below). Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Lead section

• First paragraph, third sentence: I suggest rephrasing to read: "The British carmaker Aston Martin produced the DB11 between 2016 and 2023, when it was replaced by the DB12" – to bring the years together.
• Second paragraph, first sentence: I suggest rephrasing to read: "Designed by Marek Reichman, who became lead designer at Aston Martin in May 2005, , the DB11 debuted at the Geneva Motor Show in March 2016" – subordinate clause sounds better in the active rather than the passive voice.
• Second paragraph, final sentence: I suggest deleting "German carmaker"
• Third paragraph, final sentence: Please delete this sentence as it repeats the third sentence of the first paragraph.

Background

• First paragraph, third sentence: I suggest linking "platform" to car platform.
• First paragraph, final sentence: Please delete "subsequently" – you don't need this word if you are giving the years of the models.
• Second paragraph, second sentence: I suggest rephrasing "which the DB11 was a part of" to "which included the DB11" – eliminates the repetition of "was"
• Second paragraph, third sentence: I suggest deleting "model" from "indicated that this model range" – reduces repetition.
• Third paragraph, third sentence: Please delink "Gaydon, Warwickshire" – MOS:LINKONCE.

Design

• First paragraph, first sentence: If you have linked "platform" to car platform in the first paragraph of the "Background" section, please de-link it here.
• First paragraph, first sentence: Please delink "Vantage" and "aluminium" – MOS:LINKONCE.

  This is a different Vantage. The Vantage linked previously links here, the previous one links here

  Per MOS:NOFORCELINK, you need to distinguish between the two in the text - don't make the reader click the link to work out that these are different models. I suggest "the 2018 model Vantage" or similar for the second link to make this clear. Mertbiol (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• First paragraph, third sentence: I am not sure that "collaborate" is the right word to use here. It might be better to rephrase to "Together, the flat underbody, rear diffuser and sizable front splitter manage airflow beneath the car, minimising lift" or similar.

Variants

DB11 V12

• Fifth sentence: I suggest linking "particulate" to particulates.

DB11 V8

• Third sentence: I think "the DB11 has a weight distribution of…" should be "the DB11 V8 has a weight distribution of…"

References

• I have checked the following references and have found no problems: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [18], [19], [20], [23], [29], [30], [33], [34], [37], [38], [39], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [60], [61], [62], [63], [72], [73], [74], [76], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83].
• I wasn't able to check [57] (San Diego Union-Tribune) – please add the |url-access= subscription parameter to this reference.
• Reference [65] (Ollie Marriage, Top Gear) does not appear to give the wheel diameter of 20 inches or say that they are made of alloy.
• Reference [67] (Erin Baker, Goodwood) does not capitalise "Lime Green".
• Reference [71] (Ben Barry, Car) does not appear to mention the designation "M177".
• Reference [75] (Rory Jurnecka, Motor Trend) does not appear to mention the designation "M177".

  i removed “M177”, but it’s the same M177 from the coupe

Copyright violations and close paraphrasing

• I have detected no issues.

Images

• All uploaded to Commons and appropriately licensed.

Putting the review on hold

There are just a few suggestions for improving the text and a few queries on a handful of references. Overall, this is a very well-written article and an enjoyable read! I think it is already very close to passing, so I will put the review on hold. Mertbiol (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mertbiol: All responded to. Thanks for the review! 750h+ 17:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@750h+: That's great. It's just the Vantage and Vantage issue to sort per MOS:NOFORCELINK (see above) Mertbiol (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mertbiol: makes sense. Fixed this 750h+ 17:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Final verdict

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Congratulations and thanks to @750h+: for a very enjoyable and well-researched article, which I am delighted to promote to GA status. Onwards to WP:FAC? Mertbiol (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the review. Going to FAC after Ferrari FF! 750h+ 17:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)