Talk:Lancia Flaminia/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of August 20, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Hmmm, some of the prose is not good: The demise of this model in 1970 left a void only filled by Lancia Gamma in 1976. is rather POV; Interestingly, coupés outsold the 4-door variant by far, even in spite of shorter production run and coachbuilt bodies. is not encyclopaedic; Most importantly, the front suspension was independent, with double wishbones, coil springs, telescopic shock absorbers, and an anti-roll bar. - POV; They were assembled at Lancia's old facility at Borgo San Paolo as the last model to be built there. - clumsy; Prose somewhat improved but still not at GA standard, e.g.The Coupé was also penned by Pininfarina, - surely designed is meant?; ~~Overall this is written in a promotional way more appropriate to a fan site than an encyclopaedia artcile.~~ I moved the Els below the references as that is the WP standard. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
What makes the archived carsfromitaly.com a WP:reliable source?; ref #2 geocities is definitely not RS; ref #3 aboutmycar.com is not an RS, it is a site on which anyone can post; ~~ref #5 is RS but does not support the sentence. there is a very large amount of unsourced material in this article. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:15, 9~~ ~~August 2009 (UTC)~~ Some improvements but Non RS sources ahve been left and despite my pointing at RS none have been aded, msome statements still not appropriatelty referenced. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
If the language is toned down it will pass muster
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

OK - I think this article could do with a comprehensive rewrite to make it more encyclopaedic and the referencing needs to be improved. On hold for seven days. Major contributors and projects will be informed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Some improvements have been made but refrencing still needs to be addressed. Sufficient time has been given so I am delisting this article. If you wish this decison to be looked at by others, please take to WP:GAR. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment of GA review

The article is little changed in several years. Several of us have made small adjustments and additions, but essentially it appears to have started as a translation from another wiki language-versions - I think probably the Italian one, though several different language-versions seem to lean on one another with this subject/car - and to have brought over its strengths and weaknesses from there. It appears to me reasonably well written, though of course if I or anyone else were starting from zero, probably we would do a lot of the stuff differently. "Well written" is, to a considerable extent, in the eye of the reader in the context where many Brits wince at what otherwise well educated US and Canadian writers do to "our" language, and no doubt North Americans wince just as violently at some of the things we do to "their" language. But we're all of us stuck with that, and no doubt when more people with English only as a second language contribute more to English language wiki, (1) we will learn more and (2) we will wince even more and maybe correct the syntax a little more frequently when we see what other people do with "our" language. The text for the Lancia Flaminia entry is much more internally coherent than it is with those entries on cars which attract a wider range of editors (because, presumably, more readers). It could certainly do with more source notes, an area where I think English wiki has changed - a welcome shifting of the goal posts - in the past three years. There is scope for improving some of the prose by splitting some of the sentences - maybe also paras - so you get more shorter sentences and paras. Some of the words appear a bit nerdy/specialist. Where technical or scientific articles use words the rest of us don't know, the best solution is to add more explanatory links, and there is scope here for some of that with the suspension components. I don't understand why a summary of how the suspension fitted together is POV, but it does feature one or two unusual words for people who don't spend a lot of time studying car suspensions. At least ... that's my judgement. Bits of the syntax are plain clumsy, I think reflecting people not writing in their mother tongue: that does not necessarily invalidate the information they contain, but it probably should encourage a gentle rearrangement of some of the clauses. But if you think it needs a complete rewrite, please you, or anyone else who agrees and who thinks him/herself suitably equipped, just do it, and we'll no doubt let you know what we think! (I would not attempt a complete rewrite unless I had more and better sources to hand than I do, because in the course of a complete rewrite one would, presumably, be keen to ensure that what one was writing was sourced from sufficiently reliable sources to render it true beyond excessive doubt!) Success Charles01 (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just doing GA sweeps at present. I am making obvious fixes but as we have a large number of GAs to ratify, I can't get heavily involved. There are only thrity or so active GA and Gac sweeps reviewers (you could help out - if you like!). My commentarty on prose was POV phrasing such as "Most importantly..." Who said that?. Anyhow, we'll see if anyone turns up to fix it. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My dear Charles,

Thank you for your swift reaction to this GAR and your insights - as well as the assessment of my English, as a matter of fact. I have authored the majority of the article as it stands on some sleepless night or early morning in 2006. If you would take the time to peek into the history of this and/or other language versions, you'd see this actually is the original, it even precedes the Italian one :D

The article was not based on a foreign-language source, in fact for the most part I relied on CarsFromItaly, which I would always defend as a very authoritative and reliable source. I did consult Italian and French sources, IIRC, but I only used one as all other weren't really better in any regard than CFI. So what I did to your language (I am obviously not a native speaker) only stems from my poor command of it and the rather unfavorable temporal circumstances :D Reading it now, I am quite ashamed of myself, as I must admit syntax suffered majorly in many passages. I will try to fix whatever I can, I am quite surprised nobody did in the quite long history of the article and multiple edits to it. I would, however, kindly as you to join me in this effort as a native speaker, and also help address other concerns you raised.

Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I'm not (as you'll have seen) in detail aware of who wrote what! It's usually the final couple of sentences in any entry/edit that I do that I rediscover six months later and think (1) did I really write that? and (2) clearly no one is reading this or they'd have corrected my obvious grammatical/spelling/factual/whatever inelegance/error. Anyhow, I guess our friend is looking for (1) more source notes or more references to the same source note(s) or both and (2) English that is not so obviously a version of thoughts that originated in another language. I don't think I have access to relevant sources and I am not an expert on Lancias (though I admire and respect them from the little I do know of them). But I should be able to sit back and take a deep breath and change the syntax a little so long as you will (1) correct me back where I inadvertently change the meaning to something wrong and (2) not mind. Anyhow, that's for another day. Here it's 23.00: I've been away in Yorkshire with the kids for a couple of days and even when I've not just driven 300 km with talking passengers, my brain doesn't do anything with too much reliability this late. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Reliable Sources

I understand your doubts, Jezhotwheels, but I believe you can appreciate the fact that automotive knowledge is a rather specific topic. There is nothing even close to scholarly thought or academic publishing on the vast majority of this area (there is some on specific technology aspects, yet certainly not on car models, automotive history has not evolved into a major branch of academics), and sources are scarce. For the Flaminia, I have found ONE book, published AFTER the majority of this article was written. One might want to refer to it, yet unfortunately, I don't have it at hand.

However, there are fortunately enthusiasts who do the thorough work the researchers normally do in other, established branches of science, meticulously gathering information and double-proofing them. The author of CarsFromItaly definitely is one. It is a prime secondary, or even tertiary source of thoroughly reviewed and reliable information on even the more obscure models of Italian cars. For what I could double-check myself, I have never found them to be substantially wrong or provide fabricated, or imprecise information. I absolutely believe in this field where sources are scarce, this is by all means a Reliable Source. Its form might be far from perfect by encyclopedic standards, but in lieu of pretty much almost anything else, this is the best we can get. In many obscure topics from other branches of knowledge, you might also find old magazine clippings or websites much better sources (or simply the only existing sources) than the usual ones you'd find worthy for "classical" encyclopedic topics.

I would also list the collection of information put together by Mr. de Barsy as deeply informative and reliable. Had it been a print publication, one would probably never doubt it. Unfortunately, the potential readership is too low to merit printing it.

If you would like to get a broader view on that, I believe it might be advisable to check with WikiProject Automobiles, where many experts better qualified than me gather, to discuss the appropriateness of those sources. Due to the pacing of activity in the project, I would advise, though, leaving a week more for such a discussion.

For more minor stuff - reference 3 does not fully support the factoid I used it for, I guess we will all be more comfortable without it. Reference 4 and reference 5 do support all the information in the paragraph they are used for, for what I can tell, if I am mistaken please precisely point to the information you find inappropriately sourced.

I am also trying to address your other points, but unfortunately due to RL matters I cannot devote as much time as I'd like to it. I hope you do appreciate that there are amendments being made to the article, and I will surely continue to work on it to address any doubts raised, in the shortest possible time. I would be most grateful for extending the deadline by a few days.

Kind regards,

PrinceGloria (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right ref #2 is a private website on geocities.com it is not a reliable source. Please read the guidelines at WP:RS. Where is the reputation for fact checking, editorial oversight, etc? Can you find sources that say that this is a reliable source? ref #4 - La repubblica is fine as a reliable source, but the link provided does not mention Lancia Flaminia at at all. The GA Sweeps process is to weed out articles which may have achieved GA statsus a few years ago but hwich are not now GAs. Put simply if you can't source sometrhing then it shouldn't be in Wikipedia.

There are lots of print and online sources out there. You can find some, using the Wikipedia reference search tool [1]. This doesn't guarantee that they are RS, but Forbes magazine, the Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, Time magazine certainly are. I'll look by mid week but I will delist then if the article does not meet GA criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: La Repubblica:

Please click: [2]
Please press CTRL+F (provided you're using Internet Explorer or Firefox, in case you use another browser, please press the hotkey combination for in-document search function)
Please enter "Flaminia" and press Enter
Please rejoice at founding, as I did, that the article still mentions the very word "Flaminia" 9 times
Please use Google Translate, in case you don't read Italian, to see the majority of the article is devoted to the Lancia Flaminia

That source is OK, but is n ot the one you are using in the artcicle. I suggest you fix it there rather than lecturing me. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly thank you

Re: "Reliable" sources:

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in such topics, we are looking for sources that are reliable in that their quality of information provided is appropriate. Daily newspapers, glossy magazines etc. might have nominal editorial oversight, but more often than not while writing of such specialist topic, they tend to make glaring mistakes and simply provide untrue, imprecise and outright wrong information. In that case, I would actually consider them to be the wrong sources if I reviewed the article (being a formerly active GA reviewer myself). IMHO, it does not boil down to selection of sources that "look good", but those who are actually appropriate for the topic at hand. I will be most glad to discuss it further.
Source #2 is used for relatively un-controversial information such as production figures, and some trivial information such as the names of famous owners. If you find the latter inappropriate, I can simply remove it from the article without significant loss of quality thereof. I would keep the production figures, as this is data vital for the article, not quite controversial and hard to source otherwise.
I will try to add some other sources using the search engine provided, but please note I will always put the "trustworthiness" of the source relative to the topic at hand over its niceness. If some editorial at the Daily Telegraph will claim Lancia Flaminia was a six-door station wagon driven by caterpillars and powered by a steam engine, I will still trust CarsFromItaly and Mr. de Barsy better.

Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't make the rules. I just judge against the criteria that are agreed by Wikipedia editors. If you don't agree with them, then don't worry. The article will be delisted. It will still exist, it just won't be a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jezhotwells, first of all excuse me for unintentionally misspelling your user name.

Secondly, may I draw your attention to the fact that while you are not making the rules, you are applying them using your own good-faith interpretation thereof. I am thereby appealing to your judiciary capacity to regard the above. I considered myself a rather stringend reviewer, to the border of unhelpfulness, but I do believe I would at least consider such argument. In case you do not feel compelled to delve into that, why not pass this over to another reviewer willing to dabble into that?

Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Can I kindly ask you not to intersperse your reply with mine? It does not quite help track the discussion, at least for me.

PS2. Am I to understand the reference you find problematic is Mr. de Barsy's site? Would simply removing it be enough for you to alleviate this concern?