Talk:Aston Martin DB11/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: 750h+ (talk · contribs) 10:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Mertbiol (talk · contribs) 16:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have read through this very interesting article. It's well written and generally very clear. I have queries on some of the citations and some suggestions for improving the text (below). Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

First paragraph, third sentence: I suggest rephrasing to read: "The British carmaker Aston Martin produced the DB11 between 2016 and 2023, when it was replaced by the DB12" – to bring the years together.
Second paragraph, first sentence: I suggest rephrasing to read: "Designed by Marek Reichman, who became lead designer at Aston Martin in May 2005, , the DB11 debuted at the Geneva Motor Show in March 2016" – subordinate clause sounds better in the active rather than the passive voice.
Second paragraph, final sentence: I suggest deleting "German carmaker"
Third paragraph, final sentence: Please delete this sentence as it repeats the third sentence of the first paragraph.

Background

First paragraph, third sentence: I suggest linking "platform" to car platform.
First paragraph, final sentence: Please delete "subsequently" – you don't need this word if you are giving the years of the models.
Second paragraph, second sentence: I suggest rephrasing "which the DB11 was a part of" to "which included the DB11" – eliminates the repetition of "was"
Second paragraph, third sentence: I suggest deleting "model" from "indicated that this model range" – reduces repetition.
Third paragraph, third sentence: Please delink "Gaydon, Warwickshire" – MOS:LINKONCE.

Design

First paragraph, first sentence: If you have linked "platform" to car platform in the first paragraph of the "Background" section, please de-link it here.
First paragraph, first sentence: Please delink "Vantage" and "aluminium" – MOS:LINKONCE.
This is a different Vantage. The Vantage linked previously links here, the previous one links here
Per MOS:NOFORCELINK, you need to distinguish between the two in the text - don't make the reader click the link to work out that these are different models. I suggest "the 2018 model Vantage" or similar for the second link to make this clear. Mertbiol (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First paragraph, third sentence: I am not sure that "collaborate" is the right word to use here. It might be better to rephrase to "Together, the flat underbody, rear diffuser and sizable front splitter manage airflow beneath the car, minimising lift" or similar.

Variants

DB11 V12

Fifth sentence: I suggest linking "particulate" to particulates.

DB11 V8

Third sentence: I think "the DB11 has a weight distribution of…" should be "the DB11 V8 has a weight distribution of…"

References

I have checked the following references and have found no problems: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [18], [19], [20], [23], [29], [30], [33], [34], [37], [38], [39], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [60], [61], [62], [63], [72], [73], [74], [76], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83].
I wasn't able to check [57] (San Diego Union-Tribune) – please add the |url-access= subscription parameter to this reference.
Reference [65] (Ollie Marriage, Top Gear) does not appear to give the wheel diameter of 20 inches or say that they are made of alloy.
Reference [67] (Erin Baker, Goodwood) does not capitalise "Lime Green".
Reference [71] (Ben Barry, Car) does not appear to mention the designation "M177".
Reference [75] (Rory Jurnecka, Motor Trend) does not appear to mention the designation "M177".
i removed “M177”, but it’s the same M177 from the coupe

Copyright violations and close paraphrasing

I have detected no issues.

Images

All uploaded to Commons and appropriately licensed.

Putting the review on hold

There are just a few suggestions for improving the text and a few queries on a handful of references. Overall, this is a very well-written article and an enjoyable read! I think it is already very close to passing, so I will put the review on hold. Mertbiol (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mertbiol: All responded to. Thanks for the review! 750 h+ 17:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@750h+: That's great. It's just the Vantage and Vantage issue to sort per MOS:NOFORCELINK (see above) Mertbiol (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mertbiol: makes sense. Fixed this 750 h+ 17:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final verdict

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, 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): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Congratulations and thanks to @750h+: for a very enjoyable and well-researched article, which I am delighted to promote to GA status. Onwards to WP:FAC? Mertbiol (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the review. Going to FAC after Ferrari FF! 750 h+ 17:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]