Talk:Flexible-fuel vehicle/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Below is my review, comparing with the GA criteria. I will place the nomination on-hold. As the article is a good article except for some easily fixable issues regarding the Manual of Style. Congratulations on a job well done for a lot of hard work. Dave (talk) 07:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the fixes, I feel this now meets the GA criteria. Congratulations on a job well done. Dave (talk) 04:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAC Criteria

Well written:
- There are several Manual of Style (MOS) violations. However these are easily fixable, by parsing the article and doing search and replace. I would advise reviewing these sections of the MOS, MOS:LINK, WP:Stop bolding everything and WP:Overlink. Here's some of the big ones:
- In the lead alternative fuel automobile are adjacent linked terms. This should be avoided because a reader could think they are a single linked term. The easiest fix would be to de-link automobile.
- Per WP:Overlink the same term should not be linked more than once in the same section. ethanol and Europe are linked twice in the lead. The page Common ethanol fuel mixtures is linked multiple times throughout the article. The general rule is link on the first mention in each section. The car makes and countries are way overlinked. Remember a link should point the reader to additional, relevant information. If somebody has made it through 2/3rds of the article, they know what Brazil and Ethanol are by now, and if they don't they are beyond help with a link =-). This guideline applies only to article prose. Tables and infoboxes should be able to stand on their own, and it is ok to have repeated links in those.
- Per WP:UNITS the approved abbreviations for temperature units is °C. This is also overlinked. Worst case only the first mention of the unit should be linked, for common units of measurement no link is required.
- In the terminology section, there are several terms that are bolded that should not be. See MOS:BOLD and WP:Stop bolding everything. In a nutshell, only the title of an article (that has an accepted title) and alternate titles should be bolded on their first mention. Only in specific circumstances should text be both bolded and linked in article prose (tables and infoboxes bolded and linked terms are OK).
- History section - The Portuguese translation should be in italics, not bold.
- spelling errors "Natural gas vehicless", "oytside"
- The "See Also" section should contain links to articles with additional information that are not already linked in the article prose. (see WP:Layout) Most of the links in the See Also section are repeats.
Factually accurate and verifiable:
- Yes. Some sources look like self-publisher sources or blogs, but look ok for a Good Article.
Broad in its coverage:
- Yes
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
- Yes
Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Yes, there was some vandalism reversions a few weeks ago, but nothing serious.
Illustrated, if possible, by images.
- Yes, However two have licensing issues:
- Image:Four US E85 flex fuel labels.jpg, image page say "author has given permission to use in Wikipedia" license says released Creative Commons. Permission to use in Wikipedia is not the same as licensed creative commons. Wikimedia Commons uses the Commons:OTRS system to save the emails granting permission should this ever be questioned. You should produce this email and confirm it does say the copyright owner released the image under creative commons, as well as start the OTRS system to archive this email.

I do have the email granting permission, and a second email, after the upload in WikiCommons, confirming the author is OK with the way it was licensed and attributed. How do I deliver or archive these emails?--Mariordo (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The email address is on page Commons:Commons:Email templates Dave (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly suggestions that have no bearing on the GA nomination

There are a couple of places are sourced "out of order", (e.g. [12] [7]). Though not a requirement for a GA, an FA requires these to be in order (e.g. [7][12])
A couple of the sources used are blogs or other self-published sources (WP:SPS). If you go for FA you may have to replace these sources: 15, 103 & 124 (autobloggreen.com), 16 (blogspot.com), 58 (Journey to Forever), 78 (Opinaweb), 100 Zimbio, 108 (skynet blogs), 123 Autoblog, 134 (e85 ethanol prices)

Overlinking

I will start fixing the overlinking problem and the other recomendations during this weekend. One question. I edited the captions under the assumption that they are stand alone since they are moved with some frequency. The Wiki links in the pic captions count as part of a section or they are considered independent? --Mariordo (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I've not seen a written guideline about that. This has never come up during my nominations for a GA or FA. I'll also try to work more on this review over the weekend. Wow, this is a long article, you did a lot of work researching this, congrats.Dave (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of recomended corrections

I just finished doing all the suggested improvements, including sorting the refs (the change of blog sources I will do later on). Just to play on the safe side, I contacted again the authors of the US label/badging pic, requesting again the permission, but now using the Commnons template. Because they have not answer back yet, I decided to delete this pic. If I get the permission in the proper format, I will restore it when confirmed by Commnos. Otherwise, I will request deletion from Commons. Please let me know I there are any other improvements required to finish the GA process, and thank you for taking your time, your suggestions, and tips.--Mariordo (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]