Talk:Saturn Aura

Bravada's review (for IFCAR)

OK now, so I will give you my general impressions rather than a formal review concerning the compliance with WP:WIAGA, as you will probably get it anyway (I believe there is high probability of it failing in present form, and you should get one from somebody who fails it). So, here I go:

1. In general it is not BAD, I would guess a majority of car articles on WP are absolutely apalling (and, interestingly, the bigger the worse, usually), so that's a plus.
2. Still, it does not read too well and can be confusing at times to the casual reader, I believe (though I am perhaps not the right person to say so, as I know the topic quite well)
3. The introduction mixes up the concept with the production car. Perhaps there should be an indication that Aura was BOTH a concept AND a production car, and they should both have their subsections in the body, summarized by separate paragraphs in the intro section, but I believe the concept was so close to the production vehicle that it should just be mentioned in the body (quite many vehicles were presented as "production-ready concepts" and such). Some articles also contain a nifty "development" section, which gives some overview on how (and why etc.) it was created (provided there is some info available on that), and the description of the concept fits in nicely with it.
4. It reads a bit too much like a belletristic version of spec/feature sheet. I don't think it is necessary to mention all features, paint colors etc. - why not link to the Saturn site or wherever, there are more appropriate sources for such information than an encyclopedia.
5. The "competition" section would be hard to appropriately reference, and such claims usually generate unnecessary conflicts. For some people, the decision would be between the Camry and Aura, for other perhaps between the VUE and Aura (or between some ohter totally different vehicles, like a second-hand BMW roadster). The "similar" field provides this kind of information to the readers to get a better overview of what kind of vehicle it is.
6. That said, I would limit the number of vehicles featured to three. This is not a "list of competitors" or "list of other vehicles in class", but a selection of vehicles similar in that way or another (so it does not actually have to contain competitors, vehicles of the same class, or even contemporary or sold in the same markets).
7. Listing trim levels with all details is rather dodgy (and moderately irrelevant, as stated above), as this might change many times in case of a vehicle as new as that.
8. The Red Line section gave me a good laugh - a section which consists of a statement that its subject does not exist :D :D :D
9. The more I think of it, the more I believe that most of the content sadly needs to go, or at least be completely refurbished. On the other hand, there are many things missing, e.g. the origins of the model, its significance, why is it notable among other cars etc. I am still wondering whether one can actually write a substantial article about a brand-new model (one that would be a proper GA), but certainly a more encyclopedic write-up is possible.
10. The GA consideration on images is whether they are free or have a fair use rationale, and they do, so everything is OK in the respect. I have some non-GA-related gripes though - I would put them in line below the infobox though (right alignment). While the photo of the interior is one of the better on WP, especially viewed in the resolution displayed in the article, I guess the exterior photos could be better.
    You were probably standing a bit too close to the XR, and the shade, reflections and the window sticker don't help. I am sorry to be so frank about that, but you have uploaded much better photos here. I guess getting a pic of an Aura is not that easy still, but perhaps some of the GMI Saturn guys could provide you with some pics of their own (I believe they had plenty of opportunities to shoot them). Oh and cars photographed on such stands (or how do you call that) as this XE almost never look too good...

Well, you got it. I hope you won't hold it against me, especially that most of this article is not your work :D Regards, Bravada, talk - 23:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. I see you have turned the "external links" section into a "reference" section. In general, references should be made by means of inline citations wherever possible, so that it would be easy to determine which information is derived from where, and which statements are unreferenced (if any). See e.g. Talbot Tagora (or the Vedette) for examples.

Don't worry about taking anything personally, I didn't write it. I just thought it looked better-written than most as I was putting in my pictures. I was going to hunt around for the different places different info came from, but considering that little to none of this information is either obscure or debatable, it didn't seem necessary. The guidelines said that in-line was preferable but not required, so this seemed like a reasonable way to handle it.

I'll cut down the "similar vehicles" list (it was actually longer before I made a few edits to the article), but I wasn't planning to make a huge personal push to get this to GA if it wasn't already at the level. Writing and re-writing consume more time than I'd like them to, so I've essentially limited myself to the photos to preserve my life.

And by the way, don't ever worry about being honest. Too much junk stays junky because of people who are afraid to be honest. When I go back to the Saturn dealer sometime in the near future to get an XE test drive, I'll try and get some better pics. IFCAR 00:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps they aren't NECESSARY, but I believe it is good practice to do inline citations and avoid "general" ones even if the info is not controversial, just for clarity and easy, well, reference. Some reviewers believe that lack of inline citations AT ALL is a reason to fail the nomination, and I would tend to agree with them. I am sorry to hear that you won't be working on this article, as neither will I :D (I have a bit of a WikiBacklog myself), so this just for further, well again, reference (and for anybody who would be willing to further improve the article). Bravada, talk - 00:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Review

In-line citations would really help sell this article. I've placed them where I think they may help.

A model of what a Good Article may look like is the Ford Taurus... Or Lancia Flaminia for something shorter.

PrimroseGuy 14:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Failed GAN

The above concerns have been voiced over a week ago and still little was done to address them. Since the GAN list developed into a considerable backlog, there was a call not to prolong the articles' stay on the list. Therefore, I believe it has to be failed this time, but it might be renominated later when the article will improve. Regards, Bravada, talk - 20:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Made In USA?

Last time I checked, the Saturn Aura's engine was the same as the Opel Omega.

Sales

Is the volume in Sales for calendar year 2006 only? Is it for model year 2007 up to a certain date? A reference is needed to determine this. --Vossanova ^o< 02:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Aura

I am a big fan of teh Aura. I am going to take the reigns of this Article and see what i can do. If there are you unfamilar with my work, see Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable. Karrmann 20:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it shows that you are a big fan. Your post also hints that you take a rather personal approach to your edits and might inadvertently develop a posessive approach to some of those articles. You might know that there are WP rules advising directly against it, so please take that into consideration.

I am afraid this article could use quite a lot of improvement still, so here's my quick review:

1. In general, the article is full of sneaking POV and qualitative judgemental statements, which have no place in an encyclopedia. This is not Consumer Guide, the job of the article is not to inform readers whether the vehicle is a good buy or not, or about its general aptitude in the market and details such as equipment levels. There are dedicated sources providing this kind of information. The article is to inform about the object in an encyclopedic way, the way one would write an article about a notable work of art or a natural phenomenon.
2. By the above, the entire "reception" section should go in principle (though the passage about sales results is informative and salvageable). Why so? Because there is no way one can maintain POV here (not to mention that individual reviewers' opinions are hardly anything as notable as to be featured in an encyclopedia). More specifically, the choice of reviews quoted and the conclusions inferred (whether the car was reviewed positively/negatively, whether something was of concern or not etc.) is fully at the will and pleasure of the editors. So, even if done in good will, it is inherently POV and therefore unencyclopedic for the second time. And, as I've mentioned above, this kind of "information" is not what an encyclopedia should provide.
3. Other fragments where POV sneaked in:
   1. I am not quite convinced that referring to the L-Series as "having seen lacklustre sales" is NPOV.
   2. "The interior of the Aura also marks..." - this sentence wouldn't be out of place in a magazine article, but rather is in an encyclopedia.
   3. "Ion's interior was highly criticized" - POV, even though one look would suffice to see why :D
   4. The caption under the picture of Aura's rear end - whether a vehicle looks sporty or not is up to one's individual judgement, Wikipedia readers do not need to be instructed as to what they should think about what they see. If we really need that many pictures, it would suffice to indicate that that's Aura's rear that is pictured.
   5. Obviously what reviewers think of the Aura's interior is pretty much irrelevant. If there are some important FACTS about it, though, they should be included.
4. There are also issues concerning the factual/structural stuff:
   1. Despite what GM's marketing would like people to believe, and what the lazy media repeated many times, the vehicle has little to do with the Vectra. Beside the front end bearing some similarity to the faclifted Vectra front clip, the vehicle is rather different, and I can attest that seeing Vectras every day. There are of course some obvious similarities given that both vehicles are 2000s sedans, but I'd say the Aura isn't any closer to the Vectra than it is to its actual sibling, the G6. Moreover, stating that "but certain touches have been added by Saturn to make it more appealing to the American market" is just repeating GM's marketingspeak, the styling is different mainly because the Aura is not directly related to the Vectra (the Malibu sedan is), but rather to the G6. Whether the styling is appealing to somebody or not is not a matter to be discussed here.
   2. As to whether the Aura has maintained its looks compared to the concept, I can direct you to a number of people angered or even infuriated by how GM actually didn't do so. It is quite a subjective matter, and while I can see viable arguments for being of either opinion, I don't think an encyclopedic article should discuss that. While we are at that, there is some kerfuffle concerning the concept description being intertwined in the lead section. I believe it would be better to give the concept a separate section where all its details would be described, including perhaps important features that didn't make it to the production version.
   3. I am not partial to the idea of describing trim levels in detail. They could change pretty much annually, and there are some more appropriate sources where the detailed list of trim levels and associated features are listed. Perhaps some most important ones could be mentioned, if they truly are important in any way.
   4. I guess the powertrains could use a separate section, perhaps with a table, to make it easier for the reader to acquire information pertaining to their technical specifications, which are now dispersed throughout the article.
   5. I am sorry, but the mention of a version stating that there isn't one gave me a while of good laughter. If there isn't one, there's no need to say that, there are many other things one CANNOT say of the Aura that aren't mentioned. Also, until there is some official confirmation by GM, quoting magazine speculations on the wagon is rather inappropriate. The encyclopedia article should be timeless, even if not up-to-date with the latest gossip.
5. Some, perhaps more minor but still important, issues:
   1. Please use the Template:cite web appropriately, so that the title of the article/webpage is displayed, but also the general "work" (like in case of the magazine it would be title and issue, this would be the name of the website, either the URL or the descriptive name). There are more detailed instructions on the template's talk page.
   2. There are rather embarassing spelling mistakes within the article (as there perhaps are in this review, but I took the liberty of minding the talk page content quality less).

I guess I could nitpick a bit more :D , but it would be pointless until the major issues listed above are remedied. You wanted it, you got it :D PrinceGloria 07:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. I didn't want to repeat what OSX said on the WikiProject's talk page, but I agree with his comments.

PS2. I'd almost forget - do

In my defense, a lot of that POV you pointed out I didn't add, it was already add, and I guess I missed it. but despite that, I did do most of your suggestions. The reception section should stay though, as it has a part in this article as GM is pinning a lot of hopes on the Aura. If the Aura fails, then it could possibly be game over for Saturn. Karrmann 12:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not attacking you in any way, so please do not feel like you needed to defend yourself. If anything, you can try to defend the article, but I believe its chances are feeble. First of all, I am afraid I have to say that your logics seem quite quirky to me - the reception section violates a rather fundamental WP principle, and whether or not this is an important vehicle has absolutely nothing to do with it. Moreover, as a person who happens to follow the developments concerning GM and Saturn in particular, I'd say it is quite contrary to what you've said (Saturn got 3 new vehicles, which is quite a lot of investment, after the launch of the Aura, and GM makes it clear it intends on expanding the brand rather than considers winding it up). Anywya, this is totally irrelevant, given what is the actual issue.

Secondly, please excuse me for being so blunt, but I am afraid none of your edits actually remedied anything, rather on the contrary. Stating that the L-Series was unsucessful in moving Saturn upmarket is even more arbitrary than the original statement. Moreover, with all the rave that Saturn may sell as many as 50,000 Auras this year, the L-Series sold twice as much, and somehow it "failed". I believe that whatever the story of the L-Series was, it should be confined to the L-Series article (just like the bit about the Aur in the latter article), in order not to create redundancy and veer off-topic. I would gladly see some official sales projections from GM that could be compared to the L-Series' sales and then it could be declared that it didn't meet the target. Even better, to declare that the vehicle was discontinued due to that, an official statement from GM would come in handy.

The Saturn Aura actually borrows the front end from the facelifted Vectra, which has been styled to resemble the Astra, launched back in 2004. I'd also say that stating that the Outlook borrows styling cues from the Aura, with both vehicles being launched, and apparently designed, almost concurrently, is a pretty far-flung conclusion without a formal source. I'd rather say they both reflect the new styling direction now officially adopted by Saturn. But mentioning something that obvious is rather redundant anyway.

Also the photo that IFCAR put in the infobox is rather of higher quality than the one currently residing there. I am afraid this article needs a major revamp. I am afraid I need to think of putting some time aside for that... Regards, PrinceGloria 12:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

@ prince gloria: honestly, especially one of your suggestions is itself pretty pov. if gm as a source states that the aura is sharing a lot with the opel vectra then that is to be taken as fact, since we as customers haven't the details of the platforms. stating that it's just not true because you see vectras on a daily basis and can't see any similarities isn't worth one bit as proof for an encyclopedia article, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.68.144 (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Relation with Opel Vectra

I believe that the article is incorrect on how close the relationship between the Opel Vectra and the Aura is. For one they do not share the same wheelbase, two they do not share interiors, three they do not share any exterior parts. Therefore, insinuating the Aura is a modified Vectra is the same as saying the Aura is a modified Pontiac G6, which is actually more believable since they share wheelbases and similar interior layouts. VX1NG (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Saturn Aura. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090423151551/http://media.gm.com:80/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewpressreldetail.do?domain=2&docid=51161 to http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewpressreldetail.do?domain=2&docid=51161

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Saturn Aura. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080404023421/http://media.gm.com:80/us/saturn/en/product_services/r_cars/r_c_aura/07index.html to http://media.gm.com/us/saturn/en/product_services/r_cars/r_c_aura/07index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Saturn Aura. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110605071537/http://media.gm.com/us/saturn/en/product_services/r_cars/r_c_aura/09index.html to http://media.gm.com/us/saturn/en/product_services/r_cars/r_c_aura/09index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Saturn Aura. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070821134604/http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com:80/2000-to-2005-saturn-l-series.htm to http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2000-to-2005-saturn-l-series.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930035012/http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=89620/pageNumber=1?synpartner=edmunds&pageurl=www.edmunds.com/used/2003/saturn/ion/100184118/roadtestarticle.html&articleId=89620 to http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=89620/pageNumber=1?synpartner=edmunds&pageurl=www.edmunds.com/used/2003/saturn/ion/100184118/roadtestarticle.html&articleId=89620
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927192520/http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=120024 to http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=120024
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewmonthlyreleasedetail.do?domain=74&docid=34380
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060826032224/http://www.saturn.com:80/saturn/vehicles/aura/overview.jsp? to http://www.saturn.com/saturn/vehicles/aura/overview.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)