Template:Did you know nominations/Toyota LiteAce
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by Allen3 talk 14:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Toyota LiteAce
[edit]
- ... that luxury 1980s Toyota TownAce minivans (pictured) offered a refrigerator with ice maker, color television and bunk beds?
5x expanded by OSX (talk). Self nominated at 07:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC).
- Hi, I'll probably just leave it as is. Thanks anyway. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think that this page of the brochure should cover it, even for a non-Japanese speaker. How many more citations do we need? I can definitely dig up a few. Mr.choppers | ✎ 03:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- The brochure will do. It's reliable as it is from the manufacturer and only being used to reference equipment levels, and not to source boastful drivel like "class leading...". I would say 80 percent of what's in the article can be traced back to the 75 Years of Toyota publication by Toyota's own historians, but we must rely on third-party sources for the vast bulk of items (using this as a last resort when other sources can't be located). At best, I only have old Australian car magazines from the 1980s that cover the R20/R30 series Tarago, and possibly a little on the M20 and M30 LiteAce vans as well. If you have references Mr.choppers, that would certainly be of great help (and many thanks for the offer!). But please, only do so if these cars interest you. Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 07:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
New reviewer needed to check hook sources and article sources now that new sourcing has been added. Original review does not mention checking for neutrality or close paraphrasing, so these should also be checked. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
There are still long paragraphs and even whole sections lacking citations. I came across this a couple of days ago; since OSX seems to be declining to do the necessary work, I left Mr.choppers a note to ask if he's still interested in working on the article, but there's been no response. I suggest waiting a few more days, then closing the nomination if there's been no further input. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
No sign of any interest by Mr.choppers five days after he was pinged (and despite a great many edits by him in the interim). As DoctorKubla notes, OSX has decided not to do further work, so as there are still major sourcing issues, it's time to close this nomination as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
