Talk:DMC DeLorean/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk · contribs) 20:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you know but there are six good article criteria, which articles must obey in order to become GA. The article you nominated is nowhere close to it. I'm a bit surprised you re-nominated this article after David Fuchs quick failed it as almost all the same issues need to be addressed.

As there are numerous paragraphs without sources, this article immediately fails criteria #2 of the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, which is Verifiable with no original research. First get in touch with it, Wikipedia:Good article criteria, secondly take a look at other GA and FA articles as there are plenty of them. Please don't nominate this or any other article in this shape, again. As of right now, you can't address all these issues within the usual time of a week to bring this article to the aforementioned status it will require a lot of research on the web, books and other sources you can get your hands on, as well as remove unreliable sources, get a good grasp of the GA criteria, re-write everyhting, fact check twice. I believe I have justified myself regarding the fail of this article.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

All of the issues cited in DeLorean GA1 Review by David Fuchs in general and prose such as WP: LEADCITE and other coverage issues were resolved and properly cited with reliable sources. Formatting of references and citations for the info box were all corrected as was the formatting of media. These and other issues that have been resolved are all mentioned in the GA1 review.

Every paragraph contains references and the few that do not, all have citations within the section that support multiple paragraphs. I will review WP:RS to ensure that I have removed all such references and replace them with accepted references.

There aren’t many automobile pages with GA status but I did review the Chevrolet Cobalt SS for comparison to see how the DeLorean page compares. The Cobalt page has no citations in the infobox (contrary to what David Fuchs suggested) and details and supporting facts are absent unlike the DeLorean page. Upon comparison, it felt like the DeLorean page was in equal or better shape than the Cobalt page.

The previous reviewer, David Fuchs, called the article “in decent shape” and was surprised to see your comments of being “nowhere near” GA status. I find your lack of constructive criticism disappointing. I would have hoped that an experienced editor such as yourself would be able to provide more insight rather than advising to “rewrite everything.” Nevertheless, I will continue to further review GA criteria and further revise the page in efforts to improve on its quality. Thank you for taking the time to review.

Expandinglight5 (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Expandinglight5, you’re right, I was probably being over dramatic about the articles shape and have struck parts of my comment. Just so you know, however, the Chevrolet Cobalt SS GA review was in 2008. A lot has changed on Wikipedia since then and I don’t think that’s a fair comparison. Here’s my specific issue, you renominated this article without addressing all of the issues previously raised (such as sourcing). I personally don’t think it’s fair to nominate an article for GA review when it most definitely fails our GA criteria, especially when this sat for months. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Would you kindly review once more? I have spent the last 3 weeks making revisions and removing instances of WP:RS. All references are published sources from books and online citations are all from reputable sources such as the Los Angeles Times, Time Magazine, Road & Track magazine to name a few. If you could provide any specific sections or paragraphs that you feel need further work, that would be helpful so I can further research areas that I may have overlooked. Thank you for your feedback. Expandinglight5 (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

At this point, I will renominate the article for good status. I believe all instances of WP: RS have been properly addressed. Expandinglight5 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)