Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aston Martin DB9/archive1
Aston Martin DB9 edit
Aston Martin DB9 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
This article is about one of the most gorgeous coupes currently, one of the most contemporary car designs of the 21st century currently, and one of the best designs from Ian Callum. Big thanks to SchroCat for his excellent peer review, and Superflat Monogram, who brought this to Good Article status ten years ago. This is my first featured article nomination. 750h+ | Talk 13:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
| Source and image review (passed) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Welcome to FAC! I'll start with an image review.
Source review editReviewing this version:
Looks like we are dealing with lots of magazine and newspaper sources; only the Oxford Mail raises reliability questions but keep in mind that I don't know car magazines very well. Is the link to Adam Phillips (psychologist) correct? Don't know most of the book publishers very well but it seems like the source formatting is fairly consistent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
|
Model years edit
It contains many sentences like "In October 2012, in preparation for the 2013 model year". Does this mean that a change was made in Oct 2012, and then more changes were made in calendar year 2013. Or maybe changes were made in Oct 2012 and more changes were made later in 2012 (with late 2012 being the US style 2013 model year) ? Or does it mean that in Oct 2012 changes were made and these count as the US style 2013 model year? For clarity, the US style 2013 model year is the production run that includes 1 Jan 2013 and usually goes form late 2012 to late 2013 calendar years.
Similarly, "Furthermore, the 2009 model" is not clear whether it means the changes introduced in 2009 calendar year (ie mid-2009 to mid-2010) or introduced in 2009 model year (mid-2008 to mid-2009 calendar year).
Be aware that American sources tend to use model years and they just assume that all their readers also think in model years. This is, of course, not true for international readers and can be very confusing to the majority of non-Americans who tend to think in calendar years. Stepho talk 23:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Epicgenius edit
I will look at this shortly. I should note that 750h+ has approached me about this nomination on my talk page, but it will not affect my review of this article. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for this EpicGenius. Apologies for the approach, hope it didn't bug you. 750h+ | Talk 16:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Lead/infobox:
- Para 1: "produced from 2004 until
it was discontinued in2016" - I'd say "produced from 2004 to 2016", since readers are probably going to assume that the car was discontinued when production ceased.
- done
- Para 2: "Aston Martin produced from 1994 until it was discontinued in 2004" - Similarly, I suggest "from 1994 to 2004".
- done
- Para 2: "made its public debut" - Was there a private debut? If not, I'd change both instances of "made its public debut" to "debuted".
- done
- Para 3: "But the most noteworthy update" - I would eliminate "but" or change this to "however", as this is both awkward and somewhat redundant.
- done; changed to however
- The lead doesn't seem to mention why it was discontinued, or how many vehicles were built (the latter is in the infobox though).
- There’s not particularly a lot on the discontinuation, which is why only the first paragraph and infobox say that.
- Para 1: "produced from 2004 until
- More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments Epicgenius. 750h+ | Talk 03:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius:… knock knock :) 750h+ | Talk 16:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Basically, my remaining comments are mostly minor nitpicks. Do you want these anyway (these may take a while), or do you want me to just point out the few substantive comments I had? – Epicgenius (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- I only have a few non-minor concerns.Name:
- "Although it succeeded the DB7, Aston Martin did not name the car DB8 due to fears that the name would suggest that it featured a V8 engine—the DB9 has a V12." - The first part of the sentence is a dangling modifier (Aston Martin did not succeed the DB7; the DB9 did).
- whoops, fixed.
- Development:
- Para 2: "But when Aston Martin appointed Henrik Fisker as the lead designer in 2001," - It feels clunky to start a sentence with "but". I would go with "However", or even delete that word altogether if the contrast to the previous sentences is apparent.
- done
- Para 3: "Instead of the Vanquish's red starter button which was often described as "vulgar"," - I would add a comma before "which", as "which was often described as 'vulgar'" appears to be a parenthetical phrase.
- done
- Design and technology:
- Para 3: "The Aston Martin DB9 used a 5.9-litre V12 engine.[45][46][47] This generates 570 N⋅m (420 lb⋅ft) of torque at 5,000 rpm and a maximum power output of 456 PS (335 kW; 450 hp) at 6,000 rpm" - This goes from present tense (in para 2) to past tense (the first sentence of para 3) back to present tense again. Should this be "The Aston Martin DB9 uses", unless all copies of the DB9 are destroyed?
- makes sense, as the DB9 does still exist
- Updates:
- Para 1: "Although primarily unchanged, the updates included stylistic tweaks" - This is also a dangling modifier. The updates weren't unchanged; the DB9 was.
- done
- Variants:
- Do we know how many of the DB9 Volante and DB9 GT were created? You mention how many DB9 LMs were created.
- The website “6SpeedOnline” says 6,380 Volantes were made, but its reliability seems questionable? I can’t find anything on the DB9 GT.
- DB9 Volante:
- Para 1: "In the case of a rollover incident," - This should be "in case of".
- done
- That's basically it from me. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments @Epicgenius:. I’ve addressed these. 750h+ | Talk 17:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments @Epicgenius:. I’ve addressed these. 750h+ | Talk 17:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
serial edit
I came here to review, having spotted a nice and neutral notice on another page, so I will do so (that was prior to any others I may also have spotted). Everything has been dealt with, however, so—with the exception of, as off this version, a page range error at fn. 109 (requires pp=, not p=)—I'm happy to support. ——Serial Number 54129 10:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Parsecboy edit
- "The DB9's range includes the coupe..." - when I hear "range", I think of a distance (i.e., how far something can go on a full tank of gas under normal conditions). This might be a US/Europe thing, but it may be simpler to state something like "The DB9 was available as a coupe or the Volante convertible" (which also has the benefit of removing the ambiguity of "includes", which implies the list may not be exhaustive).
- done
- What's the significance of specifying the engine types of the Vantage (especially in the lead section)? (on an unrelated note, gotta love that a DB7 Vantage and the 2005 Vantage are unrelated cars!)
- done
- Might be worth pointing out in the Background section that Ford is the parent company of Aston Martin, and at the time, Jaguar - it'd make the material in the Development section make more sense as well
- done
- "...the model plan was the one established in the late 1990s." - what does this mean? There's no previous discussion of model plans.
- I've just removed that. I had another reviewer ask me about that and he didn't know what it meant either. I rephrased that sentence to something more simple.
- I don't think that's the right direction - we need more context, not less. Bez obviously had a plan to modernize Aston Martin in the 90s, but instead of explaining that, we jump simply to "..."the V12 Vanquish to be the first of the technologically advanced Aston Martins..." This relates to my point below, about the lack of context for non-expert readers. You have to remember that 99.99% of the people who will read this article know nothing about Aston Martin, its history, etc. Take a look at Brandenburg-class battleship, particularly the background and design sections - this article doesn't have to be as long as that one, but when I wrote those sections, I kept in mind the fact that readers aren't going to come to the article knowing the geopolitical situation in Europe in the 1880s, the state of naval technology and doctrine, and so forth, so I had to explain all of that. If we're going to provide a section that covers the development of this particular car, we really ought to talk about things like major development plans senior management of the company had, and how this car fit into them. Parsecboy (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Parsecboy Okay, so I've changed this whole part to "In the latter part of the 1990s, Aston Martin established a model plan where the cars would introduce various new technologies. In July 2000, Ford appointed Dr. Ulrich Bez as chief executive officer (CEO) and chairman of Aston Martin. The V12 Vanquish was to be the first of the technologically advanced Aston Martins, and was on the verge of its introduction in 2001." Thoughts? 750h+ | Talk 11:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- We're nearly there, but I'm still not happy with the two sections. I think part of it is jumping back and forth in time between the Background and Design sections - it might be simplest to move the "In the latter part of the 1990s..." sentence to the second paragraph of the background section, where the V12 Vanquish is introduced (and you could probably eliminate the sentence "The V12 Vanquish was to be the first of the technologically advanced Aston Martins..." as more or less redundant to the introduction you gave it in the previous section).
- One other thing I noticed: I assume the DB9 was the AM305 project (based on Callum's quote), but no explanation is given for how the original 2-seater became a 2+2 (and seemingly superseded the AM802 project). Parsecboy (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Parsecboy: So I've put your first suggestions into place. With your final query, where you said
One other thing I noticed: I assume the DB9 was the AM305 project (based on Callum's quote), but no explanation is given for how the original 2-seater became a 2+2 (and seemingly superseded the AM802 project)
, The DB9 was the AM802 project; the 2005 Vantage was the AM305. As stated here "The entry-level DB7 was due to be replaced by a car with the project codename "AM802", slated to be a 2+2 grand touring car." This was referring to the DB9, which replaced the DB7. "During this time, a third project was in development, codenamed the "AM305". It was to be a smaller, two-seater car intended to compete with the Porsche 911 and the Ferrari 360." Talks about the Vantage. But I'll specify that. 750h+ | Talk 03:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Parsecboy: So I've put your first suggestions into place. With your final query, where you said
- I've just removed that. I had another reviewer ask me about that and he didn't know what it meant either. I rephrased that sentence to something more simple.
- The quote from Callum makes a big deal about the debate between front- and mid-engine designs, but the article doesn't clearly state what the DB9 uses; lower down, it states that the engine "largely sits behind the front-axle line". You've raised a question with the quote box that requires the reader to already know what differentiates front- and mid-engine designs (this is representative of the general sense I have from reading the article - clearly its been written by someone with extensive knowledge of the topic, but there's a lot of context missing)
- In the "Powertrain" section, I've changed that to "Its front-mid-engine engine design improves weight distribution." Is that good?
- That's fine for that point, but there are still context issues. It's difficult to sort out the exact relationship between Aston Martin/Jaguar/Ford, TWR, and Lawson/Callum. The article states that Aston Martin commissioned TWR for the design, but then that it was prepared by Callum after Lawson's death; their articles state they worked for Jaguar at the time, not TWR, so which entity is responsible for the design? The TWR article only mentions the DB7 as having been designed by them. If TWR didn't design the car, why are we mentioning them? Parsecboy (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Parsecboy So I've moved some things around. The TWR part has been removed because that was for the DB7 (my bad). Callum and Fisker designed the car 750h+ | Talk 11:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- In the "Powertrain" section, I've changed that to "Its front-mid-engine engine design improves weight distribution." Is that good?
- There's a fair bit of links missing, some of which would be useful for the inherent ENGVAR issues (like bonnet -> Hood (car) or boot -> Trunk (car)). Remember that we're writing for an international audience, and not everyone will be aware of other varieties' of English terms for things or technical terms in general. Others that could be linked include torque, axle, Garmin, etc.
- Semi-relatedly, there are a fair few duplicate links in the article - if you don't have it already, User:Evad37/duplinks-alt is a very useful tool
- done, I'll check the duplicate links out soon.
- A minor niggle, but the line "Despite its chassis modifications aimed at enhancing rigidity, the Volante weighs 1,882 kg (4,150 lb), slightly heavier..." - I'd expect the stronger convertible chassis to be heavier than the coupe, so the "despite" bit reads wrong to me.
- done
- It seems odd to order the DB9 GT before the LM - when readers see that the GT was the last variant of the DB9, but then see that there's another variant after that, it might be confusing, which we should avoid.
- done
- "...directed by Aston Martin's longstanding design chief, Marek Reichman." - we've already been introduced to Reichman, so that should be trimmed to "...directed by Reichman."
- done
- "On 22 July 2016, Aston Martin, on Twitter, posted a picture of the final nine DB9s..." -> "On 22 July 2016, Aston Martin posted a picture on Twitter of the final nine DB9s" - cleaner and avoids the multiple commas.
- done
That's all from my first reading. Parsecboy (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Alright, I made one small tweak for clarity, but I'm happy to support now. Nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Comments from HAL edit
Incoming. ~ HAL333 18:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- "usually known as facelifts" -- "usually" is not needed. I might also suggest the alternative "termed facelifts".
- done
- The Oxford comma is inconsistently used throughout.
- fixed
- "the owner of Aston Martin for a significant part of its history" - could you specify the years?
- done
- "Aston Martin held the belief" --> the more concise "Aston Martin believed". Or considering the context, "Aston Martin worried that..."
- done
- "Aston Martin, whom" -- Is Astin Martin a 'whom'
- That was dumb of me. fixed
- "It was the best-selling Aston Martin of its time" --> "at its time" or even be more specific and say something like "until 201X when it was surpassed by the DBX."
- done. I’ve opted for the former because the latter wasn’t in the source
- "Dr Ulrich Bez" I assumer "Dr" isn't followed by a period in BrEng?
- done
- "codenamed" could be a single word.
- done
- I would wikilink Arctic Circle if you do so w/ Death Valley.
- done
- "Torque" is linked more than once.
- done
- "Initially intended for a production run of 124 units, each allocated to a different dealer, some dealers opted out of their allocations, leading to 69 cars produced." is a strangely structured sentence.
- done, rephrased.
- "well-defined Italian automaker Ferrari" - What does "well-defined" mean in this context?
- fixed this, I’ve changed that to “well-known”, more people know what it is
- None of the notes are complete sentences, but all but one have periods. Either way, it should be consistent.
- done
That's all I got. Solid work. ~ HAL333 18:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Comments edit
- "The car was produced from 2004 until 2016. The DB9 was available" => "The car was produced from 2004 until 2016 and was available" (sounds a bit less "choppy")
- done
- "It became so popular that it had started" => "It became so popular that it started"
- done
- "So, again, Aston Martin commissioned" - so when did they do this before?
- done; removed that, I myself don't even know, it said that in the source
- "while Fisker focus on Aston Martin" => "while Fisker focused on Aston Martin"
- done
- "In the case of a rollover incidents" => "a incidents".....?
- fixed; whoops lol.
- "But the presenters called the DB9 "too cool" for the wall and earned " => "The presenters called the DB9 "too cool" for the wall, however, and it earned "
- done
- Note a isn't a complete sentence so it doesn't need a full stop
- done
- That's what I got! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks ChrisTheDude, I've addressed these concerns :) 750h+ | Talk 10:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Query from Wolverine edit
- Are complex templates like {{done}} and {{fixed}} allowed? Wolverine XI (talk to me) 13:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Pseud 14 edit
Placeholder. Going to take a look soon. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on cars, but will be taking a look at prose from the lens of an unfamiliar reader. Seems like most of the reviews before this have polished the article, so I have somewhat little to add.
- Don't know much about cars, but perhaps worth linking chassis on the lead and the first instance in the body.
- done
- For this part except for a row of five round controls positioned approximately level with the steering wheel. -- is this positioned at the same level as the steering wheel?
- yes
- Unlink in contrast to its predecessor per MOS:DUPLINK. Maybe add DB7 if you want to specify what the predecessor is.
- done
- Adjusted by Reichman, updates involved a refreshed front bumper -- the updates involved..
- done
- @Pseud 14: thanks Pseud 14, I’ve addressed your concerns :). Feel free to highlight any of my responses if I did something wrong. 750h+ | Talk 14:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
PCN02WPS edit
Saving a spot, but I'll wait until after Pseud 14 goes so I don't duplicate anything. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for committing to review PCN02WPS :). 750h+ | Talk 00:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Lead and infobox
- "The DB9 serves as the successor to the DB7" → I'm not a huge fan of the "serves as" construction; recommend simplifying wording by just saying "is the successor" (see WP:SERVEDAS, one of my favorite essays, for more info)
- done
- Is the use of "examples" in this context standard practice? I've never heard it used this way and it sounds kind of strange; personally, I much prefer "units" which is used several times later in the article
- done
Development
- "In July 2000, Ford appointed Dr. Ulrich Bez as chief executive officer" → remove "Dr." per MOS:DOCTOR
- done
- "would become the V8 Vantage in 2005" → Vantage is already linked in the last sentence of the previous paragraph
- done
- "while Fisker focused on Aston Martin" → seems unnecessary to specify this given the start of the sentence
- done
- "Callum replied, "I would say..." → this quote is not entirely correct; the phrase "including the interior" is excluded (recommend either adding it or signaling that it's been taken out)
- done, I didn’t see that part so thanks for the notice
- I believe that same quote should include the full stop inside the quotation marks per MOS:LQ since it's a complete sentence
- done
- "alongside high-speed testing" → the word "alongside" seems strange here - does this just mean "they also did high-speed testing at..."?
- I changed that to “as well as”
- "appeared in the 2006 film, Casino Royale" → don't believe this comma is necessary
- done
- "though Aston Martin was traditionally a maker of more exclusive automobiles, he believed Aston Martin needed to be" → repetitive (emphasis is mine)
- fixed, changed to ”that the company”.
Design and tech
- "a USB connector" → since iPod is linked, might as well link USB as well
- done
- "Featuring Bridgestone Potenza 235/40ZR19 tyres in the front and 275/35ZR19 in the rear, its braking system" → dangling modifier, sounds like the braking system features those tires rather than the car
- done
Updates
- "Although the car was primarily unchanged" → It sounds like this is meant to mean "the car was largely unchanged" or "mostly unchanged" but "primarily" reads closer to "first" or something similar.
- done
- "The DB9's 5.9-litre V12 receives" → tense change to present, recommend sticking with past
- doe
- "31 newton-metres" → unit is abbreviated in the previous section but spelled out fully here
- fixed
- "The car's maximum speed has been raised to" → tense change to present perfect continuous, recommend sticking with past
- done
- "The 2008 facelift received a revised" → As I understand it, the facelift implemented this and the car received it
- oops done lol
- " it is beautiful but subtle—not attention seeking"." → recommend moving full stop inside quotes per MOS:LQ
- done
- "its most prominent changes lie in its exterior" → the two uses of "its" are ambiguous here; it reads as though they both refer to the car, which then introduces a dangling modifier
- done
Variants
- "limitation, starting with the upgraded" → comma not needed
- done
Motorsport
- "several endurance races, and additionally raced" → remove comma
Notes
- Note 4 isn't a complete sentence and so does not need a full stop
- done
Sorry for such a long wait - here's what I found on my read-through. Nice work. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for these comments, and the long wait was fine :), @PCN02WPS: I’ve addressed these concerns! 750h+ 00:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
HF edit
I can't even change the oil in my car, so this will be a very nonexpert review.
- The Rapide is mentioned in the infobox as a related thing, but is not mentioned elsewhere in the article
- fixed
- " it was available as a coupe and convertible, the latter known as the Volante" - recommend linking coupe and convertible
- done
- "a grand tourer positioned as an "entry-level" vehicle." - specify that this is an entry-level to luxury vehicles, I assume?
- i've explained that via footnote
- "When asked by the magazine Car and Driver how much he had contributed to the DB9, he stated," - is he Callum or Fisker?
- Callum; fixed
- "Adjusted by Reichman,[65] the updates involved a refreshed front bumper, clear tail-lights and more defined wings" - Reichman hasn't been mentioned in the body of the article to this point, only the lead, so I would recommend giving his full name and linking him here
- done
- What is a tuning mode? Is there a way to link or explain this?
- I changed that to "driving modes" which should be a bit more understandable
- The swan doors and unibody chassis only seem to be directly mentioned in the infobox
- I removed the swan doors part because I couldn't find any good sources. I also removed the part about the unibody chassis, as it is a standard feature in most cars.
- I have not spot-checked any sources and don't feel competent to assess source quality so I will be relying on the passed source review for those elements. Hog Farm Talk 23:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
SC edit
- Support. I had my input at the PR, and have no hesitation in supporting now. Nice piece of work. - SchroCat (talk) 05:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Co-ord query edit
@WP:FAC coordinators: could I possibly initiate another nomination? It's been two weeks, and this has seven supports, and the source review and image review have been finished. Best, 750h+ | Talk 13:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Go ahead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, David Fuchs. 750h+ | Talk 14:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- @WP:FAC coordinators: apologies for the second ping, but this nomination has eight supports, and the source review and image review have both been done. Are we seeing promotion.. ? 750h+ | Talk 02:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- The nom will be looked at when it gets looked at. A nomination only two weeks in isn't high on the list, and speaking personally, people bugging coords doesn't make me want to bump it up in priority. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 11:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- @WP:FAC coordinators: apologies for the second ping, but this nomination has eight supports, and the source review and image review have both been done. Are we seeing promotion.. ? 750h+ | Talk 02:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, David Fuchs. 750h+ | Talk 14:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)