Talk:Chevrolet Corvette C5 Z06

Copyvio / validity

This article as a whole seems to have some major copyright infringement issues with text published back in 2000 by Popular Mechanics [here]. Arguably, this should not even be its own article - the text that's there reads far more like an advertisement than an article, and could probably be sufficiently replaced by expanding the C5 Z06 section on the C5's article. Ayocee 22:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Good thought but bad conclusion. The article used the source: Staff, GM (2000). "2001 Specialist's Data Book Corvette". Michigan: Gail & Rice Productions, Inc.,. for many of the details and technical data. It's obvious the article you cite above also used much of the same data. Therfore there is going to be some similarity between the two articles. Also, I don't agree with the informatin being on the C5's article. The Z06 is sufficiently different to warrant it's own article. The current article has plenty of references and all seems to be fairly accurate and factual. Advertisement is POV as any article can be viewed as advertising it subject. FrankWilliams 11:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It goes beyond "some of the same data" and into directly lifted text and section labeling. The sections in the article are still laid out in the same order, with the same titles, as the Popular Mechanics article. Additionally, there are still large stretches of text lifted straight from the same article. It's not a matter of "shared source", it's nearly word-for-word and space-for-space identical. I'm not disputing the accuracy of the article, but I still don't see how this single-generation trim package gets an entire (overly long) article to itself. Compare the transmission sections in both, for example. Ayocee 16:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the whole point of the copyvio tag is for an administrator to come in and investigate the issue at hand. Ayocee 16:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Your still not getting it. The source material has the same info in the same layout with the same verbiage. FrankWilliams 14:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Does that somehow make it any LESS of a copyright violation? If the whole article is just copied and pasted from a GM brochure that raises more questions about the article's necessity. Also, I had listed the article back here for copyvio so I still don't get what you're saying by "It wasn't listed on the proper page". Ayocee 16:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the wiki article and the PM article both used GM verbiage verbatim; that's why they are both the same. Should we just use Quotes ??? and cite the reference or just paraphrase the pertinent areas by wordsmithing the information so it's not verbatim?? No, the whole article was not copied and pasted from the GM borchure just some of the technical details. FrankWilliams 16:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't have to use quotes, just rewrite the info without plagiarising. I deleted the article as a copyright violation. Garion96 (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Zora-Arkus-Duntov.jpg

Image:Zora-Arkus-Duntov.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Z06-405hp.jpg

Image:Z06-405hp.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, just wow

Wikitrace reveals that GM has been editing this article a lot. Terribly lots.

Even more so, its full of weasel words and subjective statements. Time for the mighty axe of me to cut it to respectable levels.Scryer_360 (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Troubling, I have gone ahead and made some changes, but more work is surely needed, let me know if you need any help wielding your axe. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Grrr, your editing interefered with my editing. This time I am saving it.Scryer_360 (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Weasel Words and such

In anyone has any problems with specific words either change them so the facts don't change or let me know and I'll do it. Also, if anyone disputes FACTS either discuss, delete with specific reason/supporting evidence. But, please stop deleting things without reasons. I've been updating this article and trying to reference every piece of information and its hard to continue to do so when large portions get removed for no specific reasons.FrankWilliams (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Super High Performance

The Z06 has been well established to be super high performance in various books. This statement is not POV as user Daniel J. Leivick claims. Also there were other substantial changes to the article and the last revert by Daniel J. Leivick undid those. Please be cognizant of what your are reverting; don't go on the editing note block only. There is not enough room on that edit line to list every change. 206.125.176.3 (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"Super high performance" is a highly subjective term that will not be accurate for long and claiming it has supercar level abilities is no better. I understand that various sources refer to it as such, but I could also find sources that refer to it as "cool" and "awesome." I don't see the difference between saying "a super high performance car" and saying "a cool car with awesome performance" both can be sourced and both are highly subjective and arguable. As for the other changes I apologize for the blanket revert and havn't had a chance to look over them. There is also some concern about overall neutrality as apparently a great deal of edits to this page have come out of GM offices. I think the thing to keep in mind is that something can be sourced, but also violate NPOV. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your civility. I agree super high performance can be a subjective term. However, it was used to distinguish other run of the mill performance cars and supercars. Understanding that the two terms can be subjective the Z06 is usually defined as being somewhere between those two extremes. Perhaps using defined terms by authoritive sources will help settle these issues (both here and in other articles). I've had a similar problem in the suprcar article for the same reasons. The problem that I have with what the article says now is that the regular C5 corvette is already a high performance vehicle. But, if you read the article as it is now it says that the Z06 is a is a high-performance version of the C5 Corvette. Which basically says that the z06 is a high performance version of the high performance C5. This is non-sensical an implies there is no performance difference between the standard C5 and Z06; which as we both know is not the case. To solve this I used the word "super" to indicate the the Z06 performs at a higher standard then the C5. Does this make sense?206.125.176.3 (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

As for much of the information coming form GM, you are correct. An encyclopedia article must be factual. The facts where obtained straight from GM as who else but them would have those facts. These facts are referenced per wiki polcies and are there to distinguish facts from opinions. I don't think this violates NPOV because the information being displayed are done so as facts and not opinions. Facts by definition are NPOV. 206.125.176.3 (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Better to say eg. best performing version or something, those super,hyper sounds ridiculous --— Typ932^{T | C}  21:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the wording that I used is pretty good. "High performance version" is factual and descriptive. I think IP 206 might be misunderstanding what I said about edits from GM. I don't want to put words into your mouth, but from what you said it seems you thought I meant that much of the info comes from GM. This is not what I meant, that is not a problem, what I did mean was that apparently according to a Wikiscanner check a lot of edits are actually being made by GM employees from GM office, which may be a conflict of interest and may lead to an non NPOV situation, it is just something to keep an eye out for, I hope that was clear. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Typ932 and Mr. Leiveck. Super has no real meaning, and therefore no place, in this description. —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 23:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

On top of that, while "high performance" is relatively universally understood, what exactly qualifies as super high performance? What does that make the current and comparitively run-of-the-mill C6 Z51? How do you classify the C6 Z06, or the C6 ZR1, if the C5 Z06 is 'super high performance'? I've still got serious reservations about the wording in this article, it reads way too much like an advertisement with little to no concern for NPOV and avoidance of weasel words. Ayocee (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Be specific; articles can only become better if specific issues are talked about and improved. What specific weasel words do you have issues with? What specifically are you saying is NPOV? Also your comment about advertisement sounds like POV. All of the information in the article appears to be legit and factual which is what an encyclopedia is suppose to be. If you have layout issues say so. Thanks206.125.176.3 (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is more an issue with peacock terms. Saying it has "supercar" abilities requires an accepted definition of the subjective term "supercar". The "Supercar Criteria" column of the table in Performance section is unsourced. Supercar criteria will vary from person to person. By the way, NPOV stands for Neutral Point of View. See WP:NPOV. The way you are using it in your sentences is confusing. swaq 21:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Top Speed

I was under the impression that the top speed of a C5 Z06 is 171 mph. It is listed as 186 mph with no reference. Can someone clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.173.36 (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Some 2004 models were known to go 186 mph. Top speed can vary depending on tires, surface, humidity, temperature, RPM limite (Can vary from car to car even if same model). 151.200.149.199 (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Specs

I've added reference for the current spec table. I've also looked at the history of this article and vandalism certainly has taken place. It appears there are those out there that want to diminish the performance specs for this automobile. With respects to the 0-60 times I've verified this with literature from GM. With respects to 1/4 mile times I verified the 11.97 time. This was chosen using the following rationale: 1/4 miles veried between 12.4 and 11.55. I added the two and got an average of 11.975 which I rounded to 11.97; which also matched the reference I found. 108.56.42.155 (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Who wrote the section about the "High-Profile Camshaft" Your understanding of camshafts and valves springs is obviously minimal, I'm not going to re-write your work, but maybe you should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.102.139.81 (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)