Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Talbot Tagora/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Marskell 20:59, 8 October 2009 [1].

Talbot Tagora edit

Review commentary edit

Toolbox
Notified: Bravada, WikiProject Automobiles

Concerns: Seems quite short (1b), limited number of references, few of which are clear cut reliable sources (1c), could use move/better quality images and more comprehensive captions (3). Aubergine (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It doesn't look that bad to me; the main thing I'd suggest is substituting specific page numbers for the Auto Katalog references (if possible) instead of a general range reference. Without having the catalog at hand, I can't make that decision. I'd also suggest a quick runthrough for weasel words; forex "far short". Other than that, the prose looks concise. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have gone over the article and fixed up all issues that are within my ability to fix, however, I do not have any print sources for this car so I can replace the two "questionable" references. I would just like to note that the "questionable" sources are not referencing anything controversial (it's only a car) so I would argue that they are okay. If this was a biography or controversial event, I wouldn't be arguing this.
"Seems quite short (1b)": we work with the references available, the article seems to cover everything important. Aubergine, could you please point out the information that you felt was lacking?
"could use move/better quality images and more comprehensive captions": the image quality is fine for the subject in question. Captions have been addressed. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please fix the alt text too? Click on the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. Please see WP:ALT for advice about what should go into those (now-empty) blue boxes. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep I admit to have written a good chunk of this article as it stands, and I am absolutely positive those were and are the "best quality" sources we can get on this obscure subject. Other possible sources are either inaccurate or incomprehensive, so even if they might look nicer by means of being print or more "high-quality" websites, they wouldn't consitute better-quality SOURCES for me. This is a rather special case in that there was minimal coverage of the subject by any form of lasting media, and I understand it is raising considerable doubts, but I hope this meets with understanding. Please do point me towards better sources if I missed some by any chance.
    As concerns comprehensiveness, this article really says all there was to say about the subject, and then some. I was actually getting anxious there was too much of trivial and unencyclopedic material put in there, so I am quite surprised the article is getting doubts on the other front. OTOH, similar concerns were raised during the original FA candidacy, and proved mostly to stem out of reviewer's cursory look at the article as "too short". Such concerns usually fade away on more thorough reading - there really isn't much, or actually anything, left to say.
    The alt text issue seems to have been fixed by OSX, or am I wrong?
    Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I admit to have written a good chunk of this article as it stands" - Good to see you back Bravada! I think I asked you about this last year YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 06:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your not the only one then: "So I am guessing you are the same person as the long retired User:Bravada? I have kind of suspected that for a while now." OSX (talk • contributions) 07:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed him last year. Who else edits vintage cars and Eurovision? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the alt text problem has not been fixed yet. Please click on "alt text" in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. All the little blue boxes are blank, which means the alt text is missing. Eubulides (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All images have captions. Please check the actual article rather than relying on that tool sever programme. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This thread is about alt text, not about captions. Alt text is intended for visually impaired people, who cannot see the image; it typically has very little to do with the caption. Please see WP:ALT #Difference from captions. Eubulides (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So if visually impaired people cannot see the image, how are the supposed to read the text? Wouldn't an alt text description be against WP:OR? OSX (talk • contributions) 12:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Typically they use a screen reader like JAWS, which reads the alt text and caption out loud to the user. The alt text should contain only information that can immediately be verified by a non-expert who is merely looking at the image; this satisfied WP:OR since the image itself supports the alt text. These topics, and others related to alt text, are discussed further in WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text now added. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's now present, but it needs work. "Brown Talbot Tagora" conveys one word ("Brown") about visual appearance, but the other two words "Talbot Tagora" are not about visual appearance and repeat the caption. Alt text is supposed to not repeat the caption, and should focus on visual appearance only. It's OK for later images to have alt text that say "Talbot Tagora" and thus to refer to the lead image, but the lead image should describe the gist of the visual appearance of this automobile: it's a 4-door sedan, it's an angular style with rectangular headlights, it has a black stripe along the side at bumper height. This shouldn't be too long; just the gist. Later images can have alt text that describes what's distinctive about this particular view of the car. Similarly, "Grey-coloured automobile interior" doesn't contain quite enough detail: I'd shoot for something more in the range of 20 to 40 words. Eubulides (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I'm concerned about the adverbs in the first sentence of the design subsection: "generous", "ample", and "large" aren't precise and might be called weasel-wordy, unless they can be backed up with a source. Can someone provide one or give accurate measurements as to the wheelbase changes, etc.? JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed this up as best I can without loosing meaning ([2]). It cannot be ignored that the Tagora is a large car. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the sources seem to use much of the same language. How well has the car held up under maintenance? Have there been any long-term problems? JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hard to see how this ever became a FA to begin with. Seems like a very minimal article. If this can be a FA, then many, many can be. But so be it. —mattisse (Talk) 00:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please feel welcome to contribute any more info you can find on the topic! PrinceGloria (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks alright. Not sure if it'd pass through WP:FAC today, but not worth delisting either. Cirt (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional keep. But has someone sifted through for prose and MoS? "newly-launched"? (Check Hyphens).
  • Why is "bankruptcy" linked? It's a normal English word, yes?
  • Some of the images are TINY. Please increase: see this for the syntax: try 240 to 260px often.
  • "The deal was finalized in 1978, with the buyer paying a mere"—clumsy. Try ", in which the buyer paid ...". See this.
  • "Rather" is almost always unencyclopedic.
  • Does the "axle" link-target go to a specifically car axle section? ("Pre-production" is good: car article).
  • Linked "billboard advertising"? Is it an obscure item? "Brass"?
  • "higher power rating." -> "higher power-rating." Easier to read. Tony (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Talbot_Tagora/archive1&oldid=1138477902"