Talk:Allard J2X-C

Allard J2X-C has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 3, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Sports Car Racing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports Car Racing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sports Car Racing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sports Car RacingWikipedia:WikiProject Sports Car RacingTemplate:WikiProject Sports Car RacingSports Car Racing articles

Motorsport Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorsport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MotorsportWikipedia:WikiProject MotorsportTemplate:WikiProject Motorsportmotorsport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Allard J2X-C/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Resolute (talk · contribs) 03:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

General

No images, which is a shame because it seems that a picture would help this article a great deal.
Check of sources reveal no concerns.
Appears NPOV
It is a short article, but I can think of no obvious deficiencies.

Lead

It is noted in the lead that limited budget crippled development of the car, but this is not stated or referenced in the body.

Development

For accuracy with the source, note that Humberstone licensed the Allard name rather than purchased it.
It is said that the design allowed for an "enormous amount of downforce". However, since I am not a race car guy, I have no context to place this in. Would it be possible to note how this compares to the a common class C car at that time?

Racing history

however, due to the car's lack of power and high downforce, he was only able to finish 19th overall - You've already mentioned about three times by this point that the car had high downforce and lacked power. I don't think there is a real need to reiterated it again here; "however, he was only able to finish 19th overall".

overall

A nice little article. Only a few nitpicks as noted above, so I'll place the nomination on hold for the time being. Reso lute 03:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I can't find any free images online for the article; would a fair-use, non-free "some rights reserved" image from Flickr be acceptable?
I would say that the limited budget is mentioned in "With the J2X-C far from being completely developed, Allard Holdings were liquidated in the first quarter of 1993, and the car was sold to Robs Lamplough for £76,000".
I've changed the passage of text to show he licensed it.
Added a comparison with a regular car with a similar level of downforce, and two with lower values. I used to know a website that was fairly reliable and had lots of the values, yet can't find it any more.
Removed the excessive mention of the car's deficiency.

Anything else? :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and this hasn't transcluded onto the talkpage properly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about the image. I was just lamenting that we don't have a free one and I don't think we can justify FU here since it is theoretically possible to take a free photo (unfortunately, I am on the wrong side of Canada for that). It won't hold up this nomination. The rest looks good. I would disagree on the company's liquidation meaning the same thing as the company having a limited budget. Your primary source does not seem to mention a limited budget, only that the development was never completed as the company ran out of money due to lack of buyers. I'd like to see either the lead altered slightly to reflect the source, or a source for limited budget added to the body. Thanks, Reso lute 15:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked it :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I'm happy to pass this now. Cheers! Reso lute 16:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Significant content unreliably sourced

I see from Template:Did you know nominations/Lavaggi LS1 that one of the main sources used for this article page, Mulsanne's Corner, has been dismissed as unfit because it is a self-published source and "a self-published source does not inherit reliability from its own sources". Can this source be replaced with a reliable one, or the data sourced from it removed please. Jaggee (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, and since you're only here to disrupt this article, you've yet again failed to look into anything. The issue with the Mulsanne's Corner source in that DYK comes wrt a separate section of the site, and the reference involved here is reliable, as it cites its sources - which are also reliable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Luke, since Resolute passed the article, let's see what they say. Jaggee, if no consensus on it is reached here you can try your luck at the noticeboard for reliable sources, but given that the article was passed as a GA I'd say that for now the case is yours to prove. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RSN thread open at the moment, where I've stated my view quite clearly; the sources that are being questioned are all reliable. Sadly, it seems that it takes a bit more knowledge of the subject to realize this, and the bureaucracy here isn't necessarily going to mean that people will realize it. And the fact that a long-term editor in good standing has evaluated these sources before using them in the first place apparently also means absolutely nothing. And people wonder why I'm fed up with this place? I try and take a break, and uninformed people use that as an opportunity to try and destroy my work. Outstanding. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, I didn't look too closely into the site itself, which has ultimately resulted in some grief. However, the cites for the technical specs appear to be supported by the ultimatecarpage.com reference as well. If Mulsaine's Corner is determined to be unsuitable, the other ref could possibly replace it with little trouble. Reso lute 17:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Resolute: who will determine if it is unsuitable? User:Lagrange613 throws serious doubt on its suitability as a reference here, but Lukno removed it from the discussion here (I have since re-added it). Can you make a decision? I tried, but have been subjected to an unpleasant Spanish-inquisition-type grilling since, so am not keen to edit this article again. Jaggee (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can no more dictate than you can, actually. If the source is up for discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard, then the participants there should come to a consensus on the source's viability. If it is found unsuitable, it will then have to be replaced. Reso lute 17:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]