Talk:Chevrolet Cobalt SS/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The Model details section is confusing me a bit. This is (I'm assuming) supposed to be an overview of all three versions of the car. However, it starts out talking about the 2006/2007 model years, when you then say in the Supercharged section that that version was launched in 2004 as a 2005 model. Could you start out the introduction with a bit of intro information on the first versions of the car?
   • Also in the Model details section, you say "the car has more aggressive front and rear fascias". More aggressive than what?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • You seem to be mixing your publishers and your authors up a bit. Publishers (the company, or sometimes the individual putting the information on the web) go after the title. Authors (the actual person who wrote the information, which isn't always available) go before. So, for example, on #3, Business Week is the publisher, and there is no author. For #6, Motorsportscenter.com is the publisher, while the author is Andrew Gardner. Please go through and make sure you're not missing any more authors and that your publishers are in the right spot.

   • I just realized that they're formatted like this because you're using a cite press release template. Sorry I didn't notice this before...the refs are actually perfect as is. Dana boomer (talk) 12:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

   • There are a few areas that need refs:

   • Model details - 1st paragraph
   • SS Supercharged - last half of first and third paragraphs, all of second
   • SS Turbocharged - most of third paragraph
   • SS Naturally-aspirated - last sentence of second paragraph

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, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I'm really sorry about this, but I'm being called away right now and so can't finish the review right away. I'm done with everything except finishing a copyedit/prose check, and I promise I will get to those tonight. Feel free to work on my other comments in the meantime. Dana boomer (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've finished my prose and copyediting, and so my review is finished. I am putting the article on hold to allow time to address the issues listed above. Let me know if you have any questions! Dana boomer (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. In response, the last sentence of the SS/NA section is attributable to GM's 2006 Cobalt info sheet, as is the majority of the article. If every piece of information I took from "ref name six" had an inline citation I thought it would get annoying but I'll add a few more where they might be needed.
• I'll work on the model details section and straighten out the references. -- Phoenix2 03:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Things are looking good. The only thing I can see that is left is to add in the references in a couple of the spots that I mentioned. It doesn't really matter if you're repeating refs...it's mainly important for other editors to be able to see where you got the information from. Since you're using named refs, it's not a huge deal to just drop in the name at the end, so even if you end up with a seven or eight (or even more) citations to the same ref, it's fine. Dana boomer (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look over it again and add those citations. -- Phoenix2 05:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the only thing I'm waiting on is the references for those last few sections. Do you have some time to toss those in soon? Dana boomer (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I was working crazy hours for the last week. Have time off now so I'll add refs either today or tomorrow. Editing isn't easy right now as I'm on my phone. -- Phoenix2 15:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite allright! I was just checking in to make sure you were still alive and active, and to make sure that you knew I was :) Dana boomer (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I've got enough references in there now; I removed the quote box and integrated that text into the prose, added an image, and more citations to existing to references. -- Phoenix2 03:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Things look good, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Nice work! For further improvement of the article, you could cite the end of the first paragraphs of the Model details and SS Supercharged sections, as well as the very last sentence of the SS Supercharged section. These aren't controversial assertions, so I'm not going to push it for GA, but if you want to take the article to FA status this needs to be done. Congrats on the GA! Dana boomer (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I'll try to find citations for those sentences. -- Phoenix2 18:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)