Wikipedia:Peer review/Howmet TX/archive1

Howmet TX

This peer review discussion has been closed.
(Listed under two headings because it really covers both sports and technology)

I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to go to GA with it, but want some aid on a few things. First, I'm not sure if I've overused some of my sources, and can possibly eliminate the inline citation in a few places. Second, some measurement conversions have been left undone, and I'm unsure if I should keep them this way or convert them as well.

Also, any other suggestions will be more than welcomed.

Thanks, The359 (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Like it a lot, some minor comments.

• FIA - for some non-experts it's unclear what this organisation means, perhaps expand before using the acronym (although I know you have to have a vague grip on french...!)

Done

• In the lead, perhaps worth clarifying which competition the car won its races in?

Done Specified that they were Sports Car Club of America events.

• Front on image has a fragment for caption so remove the full stop.
• "...to win over the public or to win at Le Mans respectively." - respectively? Not sure that's needed.

I was meaning to imply that the Chrysler Turbine that I mentioned first was a street car for the public, hence trying to win over public demand, while the Rover-BRM was a race car attempting to win Le Mans. Hence, both cars failed to "win" in their respective areas.

• Probably worth providing a context for the individuals you introduce, like Parnelli Jones - it helps a non-expert understand the background.

Done

• Put citations in numerical order (you have a [4][3] right now).

Done

• Any reason Mk. 9 is in bold?

Not particularly, just that the car could sometimes be refered to as a McKee Mk.9, so I figured it could be bolded like the car's proper name. Removed it now however.

• "Group 6 formula" - this doesn't make a lot of sense to the non-expert again. Consider linking or expanding.

Done Tried expanding it a bit to be easier to understand. Would link if we had the much needed article on it...

• Expand SCCA before using it as an acronym (and add (SCCA) after the expansion).

Done

• "Now that the Howmet TX was proven to be a capable competitor" - reads a little original reasearch-esque!

Tried to make it a bit more factual. Merely saying that it was proven a winning competitor after it had already won one event.

• "The fuel system was not able to give the car full power" - rephrase - fuel systems provide fuel, not power surely? I know what you're saying but this could be reworded.

Done Clarified.

• Goodwood festival image caption is a fragment, remove full stop.
• A wider range of references is recommended, you have lots of citations in the article but most of them point to the same article [1]...

I've been looking for some, but unfortunately a lot of sources just seem to repeat the same thing. I'll keep looking though.

Hopefully some of this will help on the way to GA/FA. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you much, your review is helpful. The359 (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)