Talk:Toyota Matrix/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I will be doing the GA review for this article, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
~~In the XRS section, please give the full name for TLEV, rather than simply the acronym.~~

In the Interior section, you say "The first year of production (2003), the gauges were completely red." Ummm...what gauges? I may just be being temporarily stupid, but you lost me here, especially with the abrupt switch from talking about seats.

~~You know, gauges. Speedometer, tachometer, fuel level, & engine temperature. :)--Flash176 (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)~~ [reply]
~~Could you say something like "dashboard gauges" then? Pretty please, just for me :) Dana boomer (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)~~ [reply]
~~lol Since you asked so nicely. ;) How would instrument cluster be? It's an industry-correct term.--Flash176 (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)~~ [reply]
~~Yup, that'll work. Thank you. Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~In the Second Generation section, please change the tense to past. When you use current tense, it makes the article out of date as soon as the time period or event has passed.~~

The first paragraph does need to be past tense, but the other paragraphs describing the options and features need to be in present format. This vehicle was just released and won't change for several years - past tense here (i.e. "two engines were offered" instead of "are offered") just wouldn't sound right here or be correct.--Flash176 (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allright, if you say so :) Dana boomer (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~It is factually accurate and verifiable.~~
~~a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):~~
You do not need to italicize publishers when you're using cite templates. The template will do all of the appropriate formatting for you. Please make sure that you're using the publisher, and not the work. So, it should be the company name, not the website name. So, New Car Test Drive, Inc. instead of newcartestdrive.com. If you have an article that is published in a magazine (either print or web), but you're using a courtesy web link, format it as a cite journal template. If it wasn't published in a magazine, make sure you're using the full company name, for example Motor Trend Magazine instead of just Motor Trend. Motor Trend would be the work name. I've done a couple so you can see what I'm talking about.

~~A few spots need references:~~

~~First Generation section - all of first paragraph, last sentence of second.~~

~~Interior section - end of second paragraph~~

How would you like me to do this? Link to reputable pages that have pictures of the different year interiors?--Flash176 (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm not sure the gauge color and clock placement were ever specifically addressed in an article, but it's obvious when one compares interior pics of 2003-2004-2005 models.--Flash176 (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just adding a reference or references to reputable websites that include interior pictures of these cars would be fine. Dana boomer (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Recalls section - end of paragraph~~

Second Generation section - most of third paragraph

I've been having a problem with that. User:GoldDragon doesn't provide a source and reverts my attempts to fix the paragraph.--Flash176 (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the information that you can't cite, especially if you think that it's wrong, and I'll back you up with GoldDragon on him needing to provide references. Dana boomer (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, tell you what. Would you care to look at the article's differences from October 2 through October 11? He says that a brochure he has makes the AWD XR and XR 2 different models, but he never cites it and leaves out the base AWD model completely. However, if you look at Toyota of Canada's Matrix Models website, which I cited, the XR and XR AWD have the same available features. What do you think?--Flash176 (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the Toyota website is going to be one of the most reputable sources you can find on what features go with what models. I would suggest that you only keep the information that you can reliably site, and other information, especially if it contradicts the Toyota source, should be removed. If the user protests, basically tell him to put up or shut up (but more nicely, of course!) with his source. If you are on the side of reliably cited content in a user dispute, you will always win over uncited content, although it may take some convincing of the editor on the other side. Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~What makes gaywheels.com (current ref 15) a reliable reference?~~

~~Would you prefer Kosmix: More about Toyota Matrix?~~
~~Yuck. I don't like either of them. Gaywheels is probably the more reputable one, though, since Kosmix seems to just be an amalgamation of other sites. Dana boomer (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)~~ [reply]
~~Doh! Just changed that. lol--Flash176 (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Any information on what consumers thought of it?

Not that I'm aware of. From what I've seen, the Matrix was a popular car for magazines to review its first 2 or 3 years of production, but after that, not a whole lot until the redesign. I had planned on including a "Reception" section about magazine reviews, but have been too busy lately.--Flash176 (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried doing a Google news search to see what pops up? Also, in the case of consumer opinion, I would say that any somewhat-reputable blogs you find could probably be used, since what you're going for is normal people's opinions. I would say that this is an integral part of the article.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
In the XRS section, you say "an incredible 100 horsepower-per-liter." Incredible is slightly POV. If "incredible" is what the source actually says, put it in quotation marks and put a ref right after.

~~Same section, you say "Unfortunately, due to being front wheel drive," Unfortunately is POV.~~

I saw that you struck these, but I don't see that anything has changed in this section... Do you plan on removing the wording, or adding sources right after the words? Dana boomer (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Oops, sorry, I was looking at an old version of the page. Dana boomer (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, was going to ask if that's what happened.--Flash176 (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check through the article for other instances of POV wording. If they're what the source says, put them in quotation marks and put a cite directly after. If they're not what the source says, please reword.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
~~Has the discussion over Matrices vs Matrixes been cleared up?~~

Yes, it has.--Flash176 (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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):
Galleries (such as the one in the recalls section) are discouraged by MOS. The pictures should (if they really show something the reader needs to know) be moved separately to other sections of the article, or be removed.

Taken care of by User:IFCAR.--Flash176 (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

This is the beginning of the comments. I'll have the rest up in just a few minutes. Dana boomer (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you've been working on the article as I've been finishing the review, so I'll update my comments in just a moment. Overall this is a nice article, but there are some issues with referencing, images, and some content I'd like to see added if possible. I'm placing this article on hold to allow time for changes to be made. Dana boomer (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updates made. Dana boomer (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go away for a little while now, so that you can make the changes I've asked for without me interfering... :) I'll be back in an hour or so to check the progress. Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think at the moment I'm just waiting on sourcing for the last part of the second generation section and the addition of some sort of a response/reception section. Is this something that you're going to be able to get to soon? Dana boomer (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the 2nd gen. section will be taken care of soon. I just took a break for a few days from working on the article. As for the reception, to be honest, I'm not comfortable writing it. The Matrix was written about for the first couple of years, but after that, it kinda dropped into obscurity. I've never been able to find sales figures for it, and since it's original research, I have to leave out that the main demographic buying the car is people around 30-40 and up. Not the kids it was aimed at. Any opinions on that?--Flash176 (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's OR, then you can't add it, so I guess I'm just going to have to deal with my concern :) How about this - I'll drop it for now, and pass the article as soon as you get the second gen section cited, but if you find info in the future on sales figures/demographics/reception for the Matrix, you'll add it in. How's that? Dana boomer (talk) 13:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. :) --Flash176 (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to get the 2nd generation section up to snuff. Gosh almighty, talk about a headache trying to find differences between the cars in Canada and the US. lol Toyota of Canada really needs to organize their site a little bit better.--Flash176 (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Just checking in to see how the work is going... I see that you're doing a fairly complete revamping of the second generation section, so I won't interfere. Let me know when you're finished and I'll take another look over the article and either let you know of any final comments I have or pass the article right away. Dana boomer (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm still alive, I've just been really busy the last little bit and hit a block on rewriting the section. The information on what models have what features is just too jumbled up for me to give a good enough description for Wikipedia. I pared the list down to just the "Models" paragraph.--Flash176 (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem for the wait. Everything looks good with the article now, so I'm passing it to GA status. Nice work, and thanks for hanging in there to get everything done! Dana boomer (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being patient with me.--Flash176 (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]