Talk:Ford Mustang (first generation)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a lot of detail. Could the author please review WP:LEAD and properly summarize the article. Make sure that each section of the article is synthesized to its most basic points in the LEAD. It is going to take me a few days to get to the entire article, but the article has no chance of passing without a proper LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Also, please address the issues in the toolbox to the right.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider WP:LEAD. View the LEAD as a chance to summarize the important elements of the article in 3000 characters or less. Among the things I think that would be essential to a distillation of the article into a summary would be Iaccoca and roadster. A lead not incorporating these is deficient. I also am not a car guy, but know that the three stripe tail light is associated with the car. There are probably other equally important associated features that deserve mention in the LEAD. Describe the distinguishing features of the Mustang in general and of the first generation in the WP lead. Also, the lead should probably link terms like hardtop, whichever oil crisis you are talking about. I think Mustang folks like engines. Tell the reader a bit about engines. Also define first generation, because the 70s cars don't look much like the originals. What is the meaning of first gen? I am a very lazy WP reader. I represent all readers who only read the LEAD and the infobox. Reconsider your article as if you are preparing it for someone who is not going to read past the LEAD and the infobox. What should they know about the article. You want three meaty paragraphs. No one sentence jobbers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link main Ford Mustang article in the LEAD opening paragraph if not sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conception and styling

The general tone is unencyclopedic. It overuses quotes in a way that probably violates WP:PRIMARY and should be summarized in your own words in large part. It reads like a Mustang brochure.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1964–1966

"The low-end model hardtop used a "V-code" 170 cu in (2.8 L) straight-6 engine and three-speed manual transmission and retailed for US$2,368." is unreferenced and begs the question what about the high-end models?
US$2,368. needs a current dollar conversion. (See Bobby Orr for example dollar conversions)
"Production of the "L-code" 260 cu in (4.3 L) engine ceased when the 1964 model year ended." so what. You have never mentioned this engine in the article so why do we care if it was discontinued?
Lots of terminology needs links like fog lamps, rocker panel stripes, and disc brakes. A four-barrel carbureted engine, etc. Also, bucket seats, an AM radio, shifter, etc.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I personally like the subject, I think the current version of this article needs to spend some time at WP:PR before it is anywhere near ready for WP:GAC. In addition to the issues that I started to find above, the tables will need to be referenced in a standardized manner. Something like "The following are the statistics for x group of engines." followed by a normal full citation as opposed to a link in the place of a citation at the bottom of a table. The main image needs some sort of logo FUR, I believe. I have not checked other images. It might be better if the main image were formatted more like that of the main article with a picture of a car and a logo. The LEAD remains inadaquate and many paragraphs are all sourced to a single source. For these reasons, I am failing this article before anyone commits to investing more time in this nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. That's how it looked before I started work on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_Mustang_(first_generation)&oldid=386545467 I've done alot and have feeling that I'm the only person interested in first gen. Mustangs. Hope someone will read Your notes on what should be addressed and helps! SHAMAN 15:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you might want to mention the 1964 car was one of the Indianapolis 500 pace cars.