Talk:HSV Senator

slow down. take a deep breath. stop and smell the roses, etc.

Hi,

It seems this article has been nominated for GA and FA recently, but unfortunately did not make it in to either. I hope you won't be discouraged. Slow down. Take a deep breath. Really, being GA or FA is really not a big deal. Life is too short & precious to sweat these things. :-)

I wish you all the best of success! --Ling.Nut 21:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Getting to FA is a huge deal - truly, the article needs to be pretty much perfect to make it these days. But getting GA is not hard. You shouln't even try to get FA until you have done a peer-review and passed the GA hurdle. Passing GA should be easy - and I'm surprised this article didn't make it. Whoever removed it from the GA nomination list needs to explain why (they are supposed to explain their reasons right here). SteveBaker 16:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That depends on how you define big deal. What I meant was not that it is not difficult, but rather that there are many, many more important things in life. :-)

The GA was delisted because of improprieties in the acceptance process. See Wikipedia:Good_articles/Review#HSV Senator Signature.--Ling.Nut 16:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:GAC, you must:

"State which criteria it failed to meet on the article's talk page. Be specific if you can. The template FGAN may help you organize the critique. (The syntax can be found there). You can also use GAList to generate a checklist."

...otherwise the person seeking the nomination of the article has no clue what to fix! SteveBaker 16:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• This article was never reviewed by an impartial reviewer.
• There is good reason for this: to the best of my knowledge (I've been combing through the history of WP:GAN) it was never even listed on the Good Articles Nominees page.
• However, even though it was apparently never properly nominated, it was PASSED by a major contributor to the article itself (diff here, in clear violation of rules on Wikipedia:Good article candidates regarding "How to review an article."
• The delisting was not based on article content, but on breaking the rules. In short it seems to have been in violation of every possible rule at every possible step of the way. This may be have been an innocent mistake; but still it accounts for the lack of review info on this page. I apologize if providing a diff (to a detailed discussion) in the previous answer was not a sufficient explanation. Please feel free to nominate this page via the regular process, and then it will have its day to be considered for WP:GA.
• Thanks! --Ling.Nut 17:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! That explains a lot! I don't have much to do with this article - I just saw it appear on the Portal:Cars listing for Good articles - and then disappear again almost immediately and I was curious as to why such a thing would happen. I'm going to take it off the Portal:Cars list of "Former Good Articles" - since it's aparrent that it never was a GA in the first place. Many thanks. SteveBaker 17:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments (as per peer review request)

1. There is nowhere near enough discussion and historical backing here. After the briefest possible introduction, the article drops right into a long boring list of model descriptions. You can get away with that (as a minimum) in an encyclopeadic context - but you won't get 'Featured Article' that way. Featured articles must make compelling reading. They must be interesting - even to people who aren't especially interested in the subject matter. There are only a thousand or so FA's - there are 1.4 million articles out there so your article needs to be better than 99.9% of other Wikipedia articles in order to make the cut.
2. I want to see the history explained here. Who designed the car? Why did the manufacturer feel the need to introduce it? What were their design goals? What market need was it intended to meet? Where did the name come from? Was the car popular? How many did they sell? Why was it continually upgraded? What awards did the car get? How well received was it by the motoring press? How reliable did it prove to be?
3. Look at other featured car articles (such as Mini or Lincoln Town Car) to get an idea for what I'd like to see. Notice that those articles tell a story - the detailed technical progression from one model to the next is still there - but it's woven into a narrative.
4. The article needs balance - you need to tell us about the faults that the car showed throughout it's life - not just it's better points. This isn't a sales brochure. What went wrong with these cars? Did they keep their value in the used car market?
5. The "fair use" image at the start of the article and those in the gallery have to go - this is not a situation where you can justifiably claim fair use - so this is a copyright violation. Please use only photos that have totally free and unencumbered licence terms. You have plenty of other photos that are free - please use them.

SteveBaker 14:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Design and development section

I think the design and development section definitely needs some reworking. First of all, Ian Callum certainly did not design all the Senator models, only from the VR to the VX models, before he left TWR. After the VX, he was replaced by a guy called Simpson I think, but I can't recall off the top of my head.

Secondly, the section seems to convey that media coverage decreased over the years and that this is caused by the high pricetag. I personally don't think the media coverage is all that much lower than the other HSV models, which have remained pretty steady, but that might be subjective. As for the pricetag, lots of cars are more expensive (even in the HSV range) and have pretty high media coverage. I don't know whether I'm reading this wrong or not but I think the section probably needs clarifying. VectorD 06:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Good Article review

A Good Article review on this article has just ended, and although at the time of discussion the article was delisted, nothing appears to have been changed heavily concerning the problems most nay voters in the 6 to 1 decision found. (Also, the 1 was the person who promoted it despite conflict of interest and lack of any review) Re-nominate it again if you wish, but the near consensus seems to be to leave it delisted, and if somebody passes it in its current state now, I think somebody will probably try to delist it pretty quick. Review archived at Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 8. Homestarmy 20:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

WHAAAT??

OK - so I come here - there is a banner that says to go to User:Senators talk page to discuss some dire emergency about this article...

1. Discussions about articles happen on the article's talk page (ie: Here!)- and not on some random user's page.
2. On User:Sentators talk page it alerts that this article is going to be deleted or something? Why? Where? I see no WP:AfD notice. Why would it be deleted?
3. The article is doing OK - it needs work - but it's at least as good as 80% of other car articles. It failed to reach WP:GA status - which is a shame - but take into account the comments made by the GA folks and also here...fix problems and try again.

But please - don't raise an enormous cloud of panic over nothing! SteveBaker 14:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

6.2L engine

The introduction of the new 317kw (425hp) 6.2L engine will need to be mentioned on this page and all HSV pages for that matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.198.171 (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)