Talk:Mitsubishi i/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This review is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
The introduction is a little sparse, but overall it is not an issue big enough to hold back the article.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
There are several {{citation needed}} templates, some of which seem to already have two cites supporting the statements. However, there is one where no citation exists. This is a very minor issue and could be readily fixed, which is why I'm placing this article "on hold".

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Article will be placed on hold until this minor issue can be addressed. If an editor does not express an interest in addressing this issue within seven days, I will be forced to either fix it myself, or to delist the article. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey-ho, I thought this review might be coming. The {{cn}} tags were put there as part of my personal little to do list for the page, including improving the existing citations where blogs have been used. I'm a wee bit busy just now, so the quickest thing is probably to just remove the tags; the facts aren't really contentious, and are referenced.

I've edited the "three litre" comment. Again, I put in the {{cn}} tag myself. I know I read that somewhere while writing the article, but cannot for the life of me find that original reference. There's a technical reference (now added) which mentions economy of 3.8L/100km though, so that's been put in instead. Hope that sorts things. --DeLarge (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your fast response, good job on the article. Article kept. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 03:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]