Talk:Nissan Leaf/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –MuZemike 19:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know I went ahead and combined a few paragraphs in as a logical way possible so that the prose looks more professional and presentable. If something is out of place as a result, feel free to split back apart. In general, you should try to aim for writing full paragraphs of prose - somewhere between 4 and 9 sentences length.

~~Please update the facts and figures. Some of these events are described in the future tense which should have already happened (it's the end of 2010 for all intents and purposes).~~

Prose issues

~~See WP:PLUSING; there are a few instances of "noun plus '-ing'" that should be elminated. (Obviously, stuff like "EPA city driving cycle" cannot possibly be avoided, so use common sense.)~~

Issues resolved

~~Not all the print sources are italicized, such as Time. That includes in the citations.~~

Can you explain or point to me the rule for italicization?--Mariordo (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's a basic grammar rule. –MuZemike 18:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but English is a second language to me, so I am not aware of such rule. I though that the citation template "cite web" or "cite news" did the trick automatically (the former not italicized, the latter italicized). I understand from your comment that print sources must be italicized, but a lot of them come from the web (i.e. New York Times or The Economist content not always is from the print edition), so I appreciate if you can provide a bit more guidance in how to proceed. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. You would need to manually italicize if you are using {{cite web}}, that I know for sure. I know when using {{cite journal}} that is automatically italicized as you said. Anyways, if the publication is available in print as well as online (such as with The New York Times) then you would italicize the publication. –MuZemike 20:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completed.--Mariordo (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know the {{cite news}} template has a "newspaper" parameter which automatically italicizes; I also believe the same with the "magazine" parameter in the {{cite journal}} template. Just for future reference. –MuZemike 21:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~[1] - please go through the links that are in red and fix those dead links.~~

All red links fixed.--Mariordo (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All dead links were updated or substituted.-Mariordo (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check again at the very bottom of the list: Refs #84 and #126 still show Yahoo! 404 errors :) –MuZemike 02:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now Ref #36 ([2]) is a 404. –MuZemike 01:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all the shuffling, it is now Ref #32. Probably the server was down, I have no problem reaching the content for that url.--Mariordo (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I see it. It must going on and off. –MuZemike 19:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Usage of percents are inconsistent; sometimes you spell out "percent", and other times you use the "%" symbol. Please stick to one consistent usage throughout the article.~~

Done, selected % -Mariordo (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~"LEAF" or "Leaf"? Please stick to one usage (except in the lead) throughout the article.~~

~~Done-Mariordo (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~In the lead: According to the manufacturer,... per gallon gasoline equivalent. I recommend splitting that sentence into two smaller statements.~~

Fixed, as explained below the range according to the manufacturer was removed to have a clearer prose.-Mariordo (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead: it has the advantages of,... as the price of gasoline rises. - improper construction of a series; it reads: It has..., reduces..., and its total cost.... That final item should either start with a verb, or you could also restructure that sentence so that it makes more sense grammatically.

Done. Complete re-write of the last paragraph (see more details below under "Lead")-Mariordo (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Battery pack" subsection: The pack does not intrude into the rear trunk space. - That sentence seems out of place there. I would think there would be a way to combine that into the previous sentence so that there is some context provided.

Done. This content was OR (so I removed it/I searched comprehensively with Google) and only left content with RS that I provided.--Mariordo (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Netherlands" subsection: Leaf buyers will also have access ... without which a car cannot be purchased. - too long and drawn-out a sentence; recommend splitting that one as well.~~

Done.--Mariordo (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~"United Kingdom" subsection: The Leaf will go on sale ... in January 2011. - recommend a split, preferably at the including the 20% VAT part.~~

Done, deleted unnecessary content.--Mariordo (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Price, tax credits and other incentives" subsection (under "United States"): Additionally, Nissan will offer ... installed by AeroVironment. - sounds rather wordy after reading that sentence. I recommend tweaking it, so that it reads/flows a bit better than it currently does.

Done and updated to present tense.--Mariordo (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability issues

Issues resolved

(Note that in the article prose, I have added appropriate tags in the article that are either unsourced, with {{Citation needed}}, or are not in the citation(s) given, with {{Failed verification}})

From the rewrite, in the "Technology" subsection, the first two sentences are not in the citation given, which I have appropriately tagged. At this point, I'm not terribly worried much about the first sentence (as it's more introductory) as I am with that second sentence.

Fixed: actually I updated and expanded this content, and made it compatible with the remaining of this paragraph.--Mariordo (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ref #61 [3] → do you have a better URL for that, such as directly from CNET? I ask because something like that would be a more stable URL than a YouTube link uploaded by some random user.~~

Done, I found the url from CNET.--Mariordo (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

~~Specs in the infobox (i.e. wheelbase, length, etc.) needs to be sourced; but if something in the infobox is already mentioned in the prose, then there is no need to cite it in the infobox.~~

Done.--Mariordo (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very first sentence in the lead, not in the citations given. You need to provide a source verifying that's what "LEAF" stands for (not hard to find one), as well as the facts that it's a five-door hatchback (electric car is obvious enough).

Done.-Mariordo (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the manufacturer, the Leaf's all-electric range is 100 miles (160 km) in city driving, - the citation given says "96 to 110 miles", and it doesn't mention its range while in the city. Unless there was something I missed in the other citation [4], I am not seeing the verification of this. The rest of that paragraph is verified, by the way.

Done, removed from the lead for clarity. Same content is on the main body properly referenced.-Mariordo (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and will be followed by Japan on December 20. (source: [5]) - Not in the citation given. Nothing is given in that source about the Leaf's December 20 release in Japan.

Done. I updated the ref but since the date is in the past I updated the content, now schedule "by the end of the month" -Mariordo (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...with global market availability planned for 2012. - Not in either of the citations given. Everything else is verified in that second citation but not in the first (I would personally remove that first citation as it seems out-of-date and conflicting with that second citation).

Done as you suggested.--Mariordo (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reduces the need to import oil and enhances energy security, (source: [6]) - This is iffy. I mean, you can imply that "transitioning away from oil" is fairly equivalent to "reducing the need to import oil", but I am not sure you can link this source to "increasing energy security" and hence may be venturing into OR. I'm open to interpretation on this, however.

Fixed. I agree with your interpretation (there was a brief discussion about this several months ago). This paragraph is in the borderline of OR due to synthesis of sources, and there is no need to repeat in detail the benefits of EVs in every EV article. I did a complete re-write, change all the sources (as some were not so RS) and added two new RSs that avoid the synthesis issue. Completed the paragraph size with one other of the awards won by the Leaf.-Mariordo (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New version looks good and verified. –MuZemike 02:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~EV-11 prototype~~ History

That first half of the paragraph The EV-11 prototype electric car ... through Nissan's secure data center to the car. is not sourced, but it looks like it's on one of the sources further in that paragraph, mainly Nissan's press release here.

I believe this is now fixed with the re-write I did of the new History section--Mariordo (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifications

~~Ref #42 [7] cannot be found. Make sure you have the URL right on that one.~~

Done, restored with existing source but I removed content not supported by RS.--Mariordo (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ref #35 [8] is also not found.~~

I did access it without problem.--Mariordo (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You would be right. Perhaps the website was temporarily down or something :) –MuZemike 20:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Most of the second paragraph in the "Connected mobility" subsection is not in that citation given (source: [9]) from what I can read in that article.~~

~~Price and sales~~ Market

~~Very first sentence (Nissan officially introduced the Leaf in a ceremony held at its global headquarters in Yokohama on December 3, 2010.) is unsourced.~~

Done, it was just missing from my previous edit.--Mariordo (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...(SL trim; totaling US$12,564) with an initial payment of US$1,999. - not in either of the citations given

Fixed and extended from Nissan official site as RS (the purchase price for the SL trim is a couple of paragraphs below +$940, I kept only the basic price at first for clarity). The US$12,564 was just arithmetic (349x36) but on a second thought I removed it.--Mariordo (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I verified it now, but you may want to change the URL to [10] (if that does not present a problem with accessibility, as I had to enaable JavaScript in order to view it). –MuZemike 01:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like that page either, but the problem is that all RS I checked with Google do not present the pricing for both trims, and actually are talking about the basic model price without specifying the trim (good marketing by Nissan). Even in Nissan's LEAF Facebook page ([11]) pricing is highlighted for the SV trim and the leasing price of the SL trim is not shown, just says it costs $940 more. I will keep looking after I am done with the other changes.-Mariordo (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nissan sells and leases ... to reduce the price of the car. - not in the citation given.

I removed The battery included stuff because this old edit was based on speculation (from non RS - blogs) before the official price announcement.--Mariordo (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These areas were selected because they are home to the EV Project, which was awarded US$99.8 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - not in the citations given

Done. I remove that content since such detail is unnecessary and the link to EV Project provides the details with proper RS.--Mariordo (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Partnerships

~~The entire second sentence is not in the citations given.~~

Fixed. Actually most of the content referred to Better Place, not relevant for this article and effectively not supported by the sources. I removed most of it and kept only the relevant Leaf material supported by the two RSs.--Mariordo (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Production

up to 11,210 charging stations in strategic markets in Phoenix (AZ), Tucson (AZ), San Diego (CA), Portland (OR), Eugene (OR), Salem (OR), Corvallis (OR), Seattle (WA), Nashville (TN), Knoxville (TN) and Chattanooga (TN). - not in the citations given. Moreover, that figure is also incorrect and likely out-of-date, mainly because that first citation links to the main page of that website, which constantly changes. I recommend finding a more stable page with a more stable figure.

The content was moved from the first page to another page (hopefully more stable, but I will keep an eye on it) on the same website. It is now fixed and updated (you were right, more cities and more financing was granted by DoE).--Mariordo (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's verified, but you may want to change the formatting of the cities as it looks like it has been copied directly from the source; I mean, reformat it so that it looks like the list of cities in the other places in the article. –MuZemike 01:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done!--Mariordo (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing

Other stops on the tour included Berkeley, California; San Francisco; Seattle; Vancouver; Las Vegas; Houston; Washington, D.C.; and Orlando. - not all the cities are listed in the citations given.

Done, move the existing sources to the corresponding content and added the missing RS.--Mariordo (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed Berkeley, which was the only city not in there. –MuZemike 21:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible plagiarism

Issues resolved

its lifespan depends on how often (440-volt) fast charging is used and on environmental factors such as extreme hot weather, which is tough on the battery. → That is a little too close to what is in the source [12]. Please paraphrase that ASAP.

Please check to confirm it is OK now.-Mariordo (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better. –MuZemike 02:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nissan is giving Leaf customers the option of buying a home charging station at an estimated cost, including installation, of US$2,200, is directly purloined from the source [13].

Fixed and updated (the tax credit was due to expire on 2010/12/31 and was extended under different conditions). Please check to confirm it is OK.--Mariordo (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The EV Project will collect and analyze data to characterize vehicle use in diverse topographic and climatic conditions, evaluate the effectiveness of charge infrastructure, and conduct trials of various revenue systems for commercial and public charge infrastructure. - ripped off from [14]

Fixed and updated (with existing source on a different url/not Edmunds).--Mariordo (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image issues

Issues resolved

~~Per MOS:CAPTION, captions that are incomplete sentences do not have end-punctuation at the end. Please correct those captions.~~

Fixed. -- Mariordo (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you forgot a few. Please double-check. –MuZemike 02:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done with some re-write. End-punctuation left only in captions with a verb (full sentence).--Mariordo (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still missed four other ones, but I got them for you. –MuZemike 19:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Layout issues

Issues resolved

The "Criticism" and "Consumer Reports" subsections don't exactly fit under the "Marketing" section. Perhaps a separate "Reception" section would be better for those two? A better idea would be to combine those two sections plus the "Awards and recognitions" section into one "Reception section".

Done by OSX.--Mariordo (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other suggestions

(Note, this does not count against the GA review but may help for further improvements.)

You may want to remove the citations in the lead by following the WP:LEADCITE guideline. This reduces clutter in the lead and help hook in readers better. In a nutshell, make sure everything in the lead is mentioned in the article body and is sourced there, then you are free to remove the citations in the lead as they would be considered redundant.

I agree that it would be better to remove the citations. Nevertheless, if you check the article's history you will see that because of the novelty of the Leaf and all the hype around the first mass market electric car, there has been a lot of one-time editors that from time to time make bold/unreferenced edits. This problem was significantly reduced after I fully referenced the lead, so in order to avoid this problem from reappearing, I believe it is better for the time being to keep the citations, at least until the initial hype dies down.--Mariordo (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I'm not going to push it that hard, but I know should you decide to nominate for FAC in the future, you may get reviewers there who will demand a "clean lead" (i.e. without citations). –MuZemike 21:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Specifications" section: You have text that is sandwiched on both sides with images, which goes against MOS:IMAGE. As far as GA is concerned, you can get away with it, but you will get bit at FAC for stuff like this.

Fixed. -- Mariordo (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

In progress – Currently going through a "verification sweep" of the content, making sure everything reflects what the sources say. –MuZemike 19:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment References must not go on the WP:LEAD. Tbh®tch^Talk ^© Happy Holidays 20:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi MuZemike. As you are probably aware I am on vacation so I have been a bit slow in attending your requests. Furtunately OSX jump in to lend a hand. This is to let you know that due to my time constrainst and a second GA that began today (see Talk:Plug-in electric vehicle/GA1) I have requested assistance form other editors from WP:CARS to contribute in completing the changes (see my request here). Until more editors show up, I will slowly continue making changes beginning with missing refs and dead links since I know the article very well and some of them are elsewhere in the article. I also want to let you know that if at some point I would have to give up a nomination it will be the other article, so please don't stop your excellent review.--Mariordo (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's fine. Take your time and enjoy your vacation. If necessary, we can put the nomination on hold until you have the time to respond to any issues which only you can respond. –MuZemike 01:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding.--Mariordo (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On hold – That pretty much completes the GA review. Barring any period of time in which you will be away, I normally give about 1 week to correct the issues noted above. –MuZemike 03:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember that those issues that I have crossed out mean that they have now been adequately addressed. Please pay attention to all of the ones that are not yet crossed out, including the ones in which I have provided additional comments. –MuZemike 01:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Did you check the "Layout issues" section? It is done.--Mariordo (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. I'm not going to worry much about the WP:PLUSING at this point, but you may want to read that and make appropriate corrections whenever you get a chance. Otherwise, great job, given your circumstances and that this was a fairly long article on a fairly new product. –MuZemike 21:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, it was good working with you. I did some of the WP:plusing anyway (see the temporary reversal I did, but I restored your last changes). Thanks again, particularly for your understanding of my time constraints.-Mariordo (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions by OSX

Mariordo, I have completely rearranged the contents of the article. Very little content was removed, except (from memory) two of the less-notable awards in the reception section. Please let me know if you approve of these major changes before I make any major revisions to the prose (again, I have only touched a few sentences here and there). The actual content is near identical to when you last edited the article.

When you have the time, it would be good to expand on the "design" section as it is currently only a single paragraph. Just about all of the information in the development section is devoted to the powertrain and mechanicals. An expanded design section (including the interior) would be great. The actual body of the Leaf is quite an unusual design with its front-mounted charge point in lieu of a front grille, and the rear-end styling is like no other car around. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rearrangement looks really good – at least certainly along the lines of what I was thinking. –MuZemike 07:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In addition to the revised layout, the consolidation of section headings also makes everything a bit more readable, and the table of contents now no longer overwhelms the article. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]