Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aston Martin Vanquish (2012)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 6 August 2024 [1].

---

Aston Martin Vanquish (2012)

Nominator(s): 750h+ 08:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

My fourth nomination, following the Aston Martin DB9, Aston Martin Rapide and the Lagonda Taraf; the former two have both been promoted whilst the latter is awaiting its promotion. This article is about the 2012 Aston Martin Vanquish, a gorgeous car based upon the now 20 year old platform of the DB9. I believe this article is well written and well sourced. Enjoy the read! 750h+ 08:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Arconning

• File:2014 Aston Martin Vanquish, skyfall silver.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:2015 Aston Martin Vanquish, rear left (Lisbon).jpg - CC-BY-SA 3.0
• File:2014 Aston Martin Vanquish Volante 5.9 V12 (52055905516) (cropped).jpg - CC BY 2.0
• File:2017 Aston Martin Vanquish Zagato VH319Z.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:2017 Aston Martin Vanquish Zagato Rear.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:2019 Aston Martin Vanquish Zagato Shooting Brake no 73 at Greenwich 2019, front left.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:2019 Aston Martin Vanquish Zagato Shooting Brake no 73 at Greenwich 2019, rear left.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:2018 Aston Martin Vanquish Zagato Speedster in Golden Saffron, front right (Greenwich 2019).jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:2018 Aston Martin Vanquish Zagato Speedster in Golden Saffron, rear right (Greenwich 2019).jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
• All images have good alt-text and are relevant to the article.
• The six images under the section of "Vanquish Zagato" seem formatted well.

Support on image review. Arconning (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the image review, Arconning. 750h+ 12:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

No problem, anytime. Arconning (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Airship

As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse, with adequate justification.

• Is the promotional quote at the start of the History section necessary?

removed

• Much of the first paragraph of the history section seems tangential: a succession of "at [date] [car show], Aston Martin unveiled the [car]" isn't very useful. What do they have to do with the 2012 Vanquish?

its background. Ive split that off.

• "At the 2012 edition" month?

added

• Is the Concorso's location needed?

removed

• There seems very little discussion of the original Vanquish

its a completely unrelated car; in the car industry, same nameplate does not equal related car

• "Aston Martin revealed a concept car called the Project AM310 Concept. In June 2012, the company announced that the production version of this concept" lots of "concept"ing going around; prose should be tighter.

fixed

• "and succeeding the DBS." succeeding as what?

it replaces the DBS. ive specified that

• "The Vanquish debuted at several events" I was under the impression that a debut happens once.

changed to “showcased”

• " of the coupe" the WP:ELEGVAR isn't helpful, especially as the car hasn't been called a coupe yet.

changed to “car”

• A rather abrupt jump between "manufacture began" and "production ended", six years apart. Also seems like the variants would be better suited as subsections of "History"

I have moved this. It is a short section though. Not much is available on the convertible, so i don’t believe the latter suggestion is necessary

• "the fourth generation of the vertical/horizontal platform" this platform has been linked before, and I still don't know what it is (MOS:NOFORCELINK)

is this better?

• "which is thirty per cent stiffer and lighter...was enhanced by 25 per cent" compared to?

fixed

• There are four occurences of "The Vanquish features...", including two at the start of paragraphs, which makes the section feel slightly too promotional.

removed

• WP:NOTSTATS says: "Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing". This is the case for too much of the "Design and technology" section. Can you explain the necessity of the following statistics, and how do they compare in context with other cars:
  • The length and piston-number of the callipers

removed that

• • The ... something of the tyres (I have absolutely no clue what "255/35R20" is supposed to mean)

removed that too, really isn’t necessary

• • The individual fuel consumption ratings for city driving, highways, and combined (shouldn't the last be sufficient?)

agreed, removed the other two

• • The engine's power/torque output

every article on a car should have those stats

• Is there nothing about the visual similiarities/differences with other cars? This source takes that line.

comparisons with other cars generally aren’t helpful. Plus, the source provided just includes its predecessor and its concept

• "hand-stitched leather and Alcantara" where on the car

explained via footnote

• The tenses need a look: see e.g. the switch in "Its maximum speed remained unchanged, but its 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) acceleration has been changed to 4.2 seconds.
• "Weighing 1,844 kilograms (4,065 lb), the Vanquish is 105 kilograms (231 lb) heavier than the coupe and 34 kilograms (75 lb) more massive more than its predecessor, the DBS Volante." Fair few points: the Vanquish is ... heavier than the Vanquish? "more massive more"? what's the difference between heavier and more massive? My understanding was that they were the same on Earth.

mistype; fixed

• "The convertible top of the Volante ... operates in fourteen seconds" this is annoyingly imprecise: obviously you mean that it takes fourteen seconds to open and close, but instead the article just says it "operates", which could mean anything.

specified

• "The car's boot space has been significantly increased over the Vanquish coupe, with a capacity of 279 litres (9.9 cu ft)" the article doesn't actually say what the Vanquish coupe's boot space is, only that its cargo space is nearly 100 litres larger than the convertible.

done

• It would be better to move the sentence talking about dealing with added weight to immediately follow the sentence talking about said extra weight.

(refer to above)

• Tenses again awry in the "Vanquish S" subsection

fixed

• "an optional "graphics packs""?

removed

• Is the Palmer quote needed?

I think its a nice add-on

• Nothing about what differentiated the Zagato edition, aside from it being a collaboration?

Ive added some characteristics.

• • It is also the first and only section which talks about units produced. Is there nothing in the sources about corresponding figures for the other models?

Nope, unfortunately

• Why does the "Variants" section talk about when "deliveries began", while the "History" section mentions when "manufacture" began and "production" ended? Are they the same thing?

Manufacture/production means when the first units rolled out of the production line. Deliveries is when the cars got delivered to the customers

• Are the double images for each Zagato model needed? If yes, consider using Template:Multiple image.

done

• "Reviewers and automotive publishers mostly praised the Vanquish's opulent exterior and interior." gives the impression that the following paragraph is going to be about the opulence, but this is not the case. See WP:RECEPTION for how to better organise a section.

removed.

For the current state of the article, I'm going to note a weak oppose. The lack of preparation for FAC is clearly evident through the varying levels of focus, prose issues, and general absence of polish. The good news is that it's not a bad article by any means, and is fairly short, so not hard to improve. To the nominator: if you want me to have another look, ping me when you're sure all issues (including ones not mentioned) have been fixed, and I'll have another (final) look. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I will need some time to fully address the comments; might be a small wait 750h+ 14:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: I believe I have addressed all your comments. I hope we can strike that oppose! Personally I don't think it's as bad as thought, I just think there's a lot of car jargon which may be confusing to non-car people. 750h+ 15:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: ? 750h+ 06:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: we’ve had another reviewer support; I hope now the article looks better 750h+ 23:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

In response to the above and a request on the WP:DISCORD, the article looks improved, but for me the prose, especially in the "Design and technology" section, remains too stilted and stop-start for my liking. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think I see much wrong; I don’t think differs from my previous works. Any specific examples? 750h+ 12:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I did do a light copyedit, if that helps improve the natural tone 750h+ 12:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

PCN02WPS

I'll have a look!

Lead

• "a presentation to a group of guests at the London Film Museum" → this is the only one of the three events in the sentence that doesn't have a month - recommend mentioning July as you do in the body

done

• "with deliveries initiating in late 2013" → simplify wording, change "initiating" to "starting" or "beginning"

done

• "performance, whilst a more significantly" → recommend eliminating "whilst" and breaking this sentence there (especially since "whilst" implies simultaneous events and these two events happened two years apart)

done

• "comprising" → doesn't really fit with "various body styles" so I'd recommend using a different word there

fixed

History

No notes.

Design and tech

• "Its structure" → the car's structure or the VH platform's structure?

fixed

• "from the DBS, DB9 and Rapide" → serial comma is used earlier in the article but not here; either way is fine but this should be consistent

fixed

Variants

• "Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance Aston Martin" → add comma before "Aston"

done

• "maximum speed remained unchanged," [past tense] "but its 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) acceleration has been changed to 4.2 seconds" [present perfect continuous]

fixed

• "which is crafted of triple-layer fabric" → sounds a little advertisement-y, maybe "made of"?

done

• "The transmission response time was improved. The Vanquish S also features" → another tense shift

fixed

• "composed of exposed carbon fibre, diamond-turned alloy wheels and carbon bonnet louvres" → another instance of no serial comma

fixed

• "At the 2016 edition of the Concorso d'Eleganza Villa d'Este in May" → maybe "At the May 2016 edition of the Concorso d'Eleganza Villa d'Este" for simplicity?

done

• "deliveries were also initiated in 2017" → for simplicity and changing the passive voice, maybe "deliveries also started in 2017"

done

• "of the series—the" → recommend comma rather than dash

done

Reception

• "bewitchingly beautiful always"." → since the whole sentence is in quotes, you can move the full stop inside the quote marks

done

That's what I've got, nice work as always. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS: thanks for the comments, appreciated as always! 750h+ 23:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy to support on prose. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 12:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks PCN! 750h+ 23:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Spotcheck by Mike Christie

I know a spotcheck isn't technically needed, but I thought I'd check a few since I found some spotcheck issues in a recent GA by 750h+. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

• FN 54 cites "In August 2014, Aston Martin introduced technical updates to the Vanquish model. The modifications included a new eight-speed automatic transmission, known as 'Touchtronic III', and an upgraded engine. The upgraded engine produces 424 kilowatts (576 PS) and 630 newton-metres (460 lbf⋅ft) of torque, sufficient to give the car a 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) acceleration time of 3.6 seconds; its maximum speed remained unchanged." Some of these details don't appear to be in the source: the August date, for example, and the power and torque figures. The 3.6 seconds time is for accelerating to 60 mph, not 62 mph. The maximum speed did in fact increase according to the source.
• FN 65 cites "Its power output was increased to 595 horsepower (444 kW) whilst its torque output was increased to 630 newton-metres (465 lb⋅ft). Aston Martin improved the response time of the transmission. The Vanquish S also features a new body kit composed of exposed carbon fibre, diamond-turned alloy wheels and carbon bonnet louvres. The seats are upholstered in Bridge of Weir Caithness leather." The source says the torque was unchanged. A couple of phrases are repeated: "a new bodykit in exposed carbonfibre" is in the source -- I don't think I know what a bodykit is, but if it just means bodywork then this could be rephrased a little more. Some of the phrases that are repeated would be pretty hard to reword -- e.g. "carbon bonnet louvres". However, if I understand the source correctly, some of the items listed are options, so we shouldn't phrase this as though they were standard -- e.g. the Bridge of Weir Caithness leather.
• FN 29 cites "Compared to the DBS, the torsional rigidity of the car was enhanced by 25 per cent due to the incorporation of a carbon fibre subframe and a large, extruded cross-member." Verified.
• FN 62 cites "Its maximum speed remains unchanged, but its 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) acceleration has been changed to 4.2 seconds. Weighing 1,844 kilograms (4,065 lb), the Vanquish Volante is 105 kilograms (231 lb) heavier than the coupe and 34 kilograms (75 lb) heavier than the DBS Volante. The convertible top of the Volante, which is made of triple-layer fabric, can open in fourteen seconds. The car has a boot space capacity of 279 litres (9.9 cu ft). The suspension system was adjusted to accommodate the added weight. As with the coupe, its standard three-stage adaptive damping system offers normal, sport, and track modes, which also adjust the electronic stability control and throttle response." Verified.
• FN 31 cites "The Vanquish features anti-roll bars and double wishbone suspension supported by coil springs." Verified.
• FN 73 cites "Aston Martin debuted the roadster version—called the Vanquish Zagato Volante—at the 2016 edition of the Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance". Verified, but the source says "convertible" rather than "roadster"; can you confirm that the two terms are interchangeable in British English?
• FN 27 cites "The car's structure, which is thirty per cent stiffer and lighter than that of its predecessor, is composed of aluminium whilst its bodywork is made of carbon fibre." The source has "the aluminium structure is clothed in an all-carbonfibre body (30% stiffer and lighter too)". This is difficult to rephrase, so I'm not to concerned about the similarities here, but can we be sure the "stiffer and lighter" refers only to the alumninium? It seems it could be referring to the carbon fibre, or even to both.

A couple of problems identified; I think this will need another spotcheck after these are fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The GA you reviewed was from a while back (the reason i opened the GA was mostly to see the results), not even i thought it was a good article. Anyways here are my responses

• 54: I removed “August”. 0-60 is about the same as 0-62.
• 65: a bodykit is not the same as bodywork. other concerns should be fixed
• 73: convertible is more understandable, so i have changed that.
• 27: the DBS, the Vanquish’s predecessor did not use carbon fibre in its construction, so it would most likely be talking about the aluminium. I’ve reworded this.

You can do another spot check if necessary. 750h+ 15:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

It's reassuring to hear that the GA wasn't characteristic of your work, though I think most GA reviewers would prefer it if the nominator checked any old articles reasonably thoroughly before nominating them. Anyway, I agree these issues are not so concerning. I've struck out most points above, but I think there are still issues with the first one -- please take a look. When that's done I'll do another spotcheck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Should be fixed 750h+ 23:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The article still says the maximum speed remained unchanged. Yes, 60 and 62 are very close, but I don't think we can use one to cite the other. Those are the only two points remaining from this spotcheck. I'll go ahead with the second spot check, probably first thing tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixed 750h+ 02:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks good; struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Second spotcheck. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

• FNs 75 & 76 cite "At the 2017 edition of the Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance, Aston Martin unveiled the Vanquish Zagato Speedster; 28 units were manufactured." Verified; optional, but you might move FN 75 to the end of the sentence. FN 76 does verify those last four words, but it's going to be easy for that citation to get detached since it's after the following sentence.
• FN 45 cites 'John Simister of the newspaper The Independent criticised the car's two small rear seats, describing them "largely pointless", but he noted that the engine sounded "magnificently crisp and rich"'. Verified.
• FNs 17 & 18 cite "At the 2012 edition of the Concorso d'Eleganza Villa d'Este in May, Aston Martin revealed a concept car called the Project AM310 Concept." Verified, but should "Concept" be capitalized? It doesn't seem to be in the sources.
• FN 4 cites "The car's aluminium structure remains largely unchanged from the DBS, DB9 and Rapide, except for a redesigned front-end that is significantly lighter. This allows the engine to be mounted 0.7 inches (18 mm) lower than in the DBS." The source has "the aluminum structure remains largely the same as the DBS’s (and DB9’s and Vantage’s and Rapide’s), the front-end structure is significantly lighter and is redesigned to allow the engine to mount 0.7 inch lower than in the DBS". I think this is too close a paraphrase.
• FNs 55 & 56 cite "The Vanquish's interior incorporates a tilt-telescoping steering wheel, bi-xenon headlamps, LED tail-lights, hand-stitched leather and Alcantara, power front seats with memory, and cooling and heating systems. Its connectivity features include Bluetooth, satellite radio and compatibility with USB and iPod. Other standard features include a thirteen-speaker Bang & Olufsen sound system." I don't see that it says "hand-stitched" anywhere on these pages, and I can't see any mention of iPod connectivity, though I might easily have missed both.

I'm going to stop there and not pass or fail this spotcheck; I'll leave it up to the coordinators to decide if they want to pursue this any further. The close paraphrasing I found this time is not terrible but I think it could be done better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

"hand-stitched" and "iPod" removed, "Concept" decapitalised and close paraphrasing fixed too. 750h+ 12:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: (in response to Mike Christie’s comment) 750h+ 13:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

While the issues don't seem to be too grave, the article still needs to be free from any discrepancy for it be considered for promotion. 750h+, I recommend that you go through the entirety of the sources again and once you're done, another spot-check should be done (by Mike if he's up for it or by someone else). FrB.TG (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Will do. 750h+ 13:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: i’ve gone through all of the sources. (If you’d like) another spot check can be performed or I can ask another editor. 750h+ 15:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I've taken on quite a bit of other work and would rather not add this, so I suggest adding it to the request list on WT:FAC for someone else to pick up. Might be as well to get a different pair of eyes on it anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

I will look at this later. The nominator asked me to take a look on my talk page, but the comments I'll be leaving shortly are entirely my own. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Lead:

• Para 1: "The second generation of the Aston Martin Vanquish is a grand touring car produced between 2012 and 2018 by the British automaker Aston Martin." - This wording makes it sound like the second generation is a grand touring car (whereas the first generation isn't), even if this is not the case. I suggest rephrasing to "The second generation of the Aston Martin Vanquish, a grand touring car, was produced between 2012 and 2018 by the British automaker Aston Martin."
• Para 2: "previewed by a concept car called the "Project AM310"" - I don't know how it is in British English, but in American English that would be a very strange way to use the word "previewed". Usually we'd just say that the Vanquish's prototype was the Project AM310.
• Para 2: "The Vanquish is based upon the same architecture of the DB9," - I would condense to "The Vanquish is based upon the DB9's architecture," since "same" is redundant here.
• Para 3: "A more significantly modified version, called the Vanquish S, was launched in 2016" - Could you mention a few examples of these modifications?

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

all addressed. 750h+ 15:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

History:

• In general, there are a lot of sentences that begin with "In [Date]". E.g. " At the 2005 edition", "In 2007", "At the 2012 edition", "In June 2012". If there aren't any other historical details that you can add, then I suggest mixing up your sentence structure. For example, you can put the date at the end of the sentence (such as "Aston Martin unveiled the DB9, a model initially designed by Ian Callum and completed by Henrik Fisker, at the Frankfurt Motor Show in 2004"). Alternatively, you can rephrase to avoid unnecessarily repeating the year. For example, "In June 2012" can be "That June", since the previous sentence already mentions June.
• Para 1: I notice that the DB9, Vantage, and DBS are mentioned, but the Vantage isn't further elaborated upon in the text. How does the 2012 Vanquish relate to the Vantage?

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Both addressed. The Vantage relates to the Vanquish in the way that they are both based upon the VH platform. The VH platform is used by the Rapide, DBS, DB9, Vantage, Vanquish, and a few others. Using this platform means that the cars share a significant number of their parts. I didn’t mention the Vantage later because there wasn’t need to. 750h+ 03:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Design and technology:

• Para 1: "The torsional rigidity of the car was enhanced by 25 per cent in comparison to its predecessor" - Why not "The car has 25 percent more torsional rigidity than its predecessor" or something like that?

done

• Para 1: "This allows the engine to be mounted 0.7 inches (18 mm) lower than in the DBS" - Out of curiosity, does this contribute to the weight or stability of the car at all?

didn't find any sources, most just gave the height change.

• Para 2: "It is a two-door coupe available in both two and four-seating configurations" - I would add a hyphen after "two", since this is short for "two-seating". I.e. "two- and four-seating configurations".

done

• Para 2: "a convertible version, known as the "Volante", was also produced" - Also in two- and four-seat configurations?

done

• Para 2: "according to the Sunday Times, the car has a fuel economy rating of 298 grams per kilometre (16.9 oz/mi)" - I'm thinking this could be split out into its own sentence. When I first read this, I accidentally read it as "fuel consumption" rather than "fuel economy"; splitting the sentences would make it clear that these are two separate figures.

done

• Para 3: "give the car a 0 to 97 km/h (60 mph) acceleration of 4.3 seconds" - As an American, this is worded strangely. Usually we say "allow the car to accelerate from 0 to 97 km/h (60 mph) in 4.3 seconds" or something similar. However, I know this might be different in other parts of the world.

I don't think it matters too much

• Para 3: The above also applies to "sufficient to give the car a 0 to 97 km/h (60 mph) acceleration time of 3.6 seconds".

above

• Para 4: "power front seats with memory" - Does this mean that the car will automatically adjust the position of the front seat, based on where it was positioned previously?

yep

More shortly. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

All done; thanks for the comments! 750h+ 00:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Epicgenius: hope you didn't forget about this! 750h+ 11:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @750h+, I was unable to take a look over the past two days because of real-life work. I can look at this soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh okay. Thanks 750h+ 13:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Vanquish Volante:

• "deliveries began in late 2013" - Perhaps this could be split out into its own sentence. Alternatively, you could reword this as "Aston Martin debuted the Vanquish Volante—the convertible version of the Vanquish—at the 2013 edition of the Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance,[59][60] and it began deliveries late 2013." As it is, the phrase "deliveries began in late 2013" seems like it doesn't really fit with the rest of the sentence, especially since this is passive voice, whereas the rest of the sentence is active voice. However, this is just a recommendation.

done

• "The suspension system was adjusted to accommodate the added weight." - I feel like it would be better to place this sentence directly after the sentence about the vehicle's weight, rather than three sentences afterward.

done

Vanquish S

• "The seats can be upholstered in Bridge of Weir Caithness leather." - For clarification, this is a modification offered by Aston Martin themselves, right?

yep

Vanquish Zagato

• "Introduced at the May 2016 edition of the Concorso d'Eleganza Villa d'Este, the Vanquish Zagato Concept was a collaboration between Aston Martin and the coachbuilder Zagato." - The end of the sentence has a MOS:SOB issue. I would reword it so it's clear that "coachbuilder" and "Zagato" are separate links, e.g. "the coachbuilding company Zagato".

done

• "On June 21, 2016, Aston Martin announced plans to produce the Vanquish Zagato in a limited series of 99 units ... deliveries were also initiated in 2017 and 99 units were produced" - Depending on how this is interpreted, it's either confusing or repetitive.

The former were Aston Martin's initial plans, the latter were what actually gave to fruition

@750h+: Okay, in that case I would make it more clear that the original plan differed from what actually happened. Epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• It seems like Aston Martin initially wanted to produce 99 Vanquish Zagatos, but ultimately produced 99 Vanquish Zagato Volantes, 28 Vanquish Zagato Speedsters, and 99 shooting brakes?

yep, and also 99 coupes

• Also, is there a difference between these three?

body styles (as pictured in the multiple images template)

Discontinuation:

• This is a fairly short section. Is it possible to merge it with one of the sections above, e.g. History?

Airship said that it went a bit quickly from production commencement to discontinuation, so I think it's best left like that

I will review the Reception section shortly. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: ? 750h+ 11:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I've had a look at the reception section and don't see any major issues. I had one minor issue.

• Per WP:WHYCITE, I would recommend that you add a citation at the end of each quote, even if multiple quotes are cited to the same source. For example, the first two sentences of paragraph 2 contain two quotes from Mike Duff. I would put the reference after both sentences 1 and 2, instead of after sentence 2 only. Same goes for the first two sentences of paragraph 1.

That is a relatively minor point, and other than that I support this FAC's promotion. Epicgenius (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the review! 750h+ 23:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Spotcheck by Phlsph7 - pass

I saw that this article needs one more spotcheck since the first one by Mike Christie was inconclusive.

• ...and an appearance at the Monterey Car Week in August.[26] supported by Jurnecka 2012
• The Vanquish's aluminium structure is thirty per cent stiffer and lighter than that of its predecessor, and its bodywork is made of carbon fibre.[27] supported by Pollard 2012
• ...according to the Sunday Times, the car has a fuel economy rating of 298 grams per kilometre (16.9 oz/mi).[48] supported by the Sunday Times.

  However, is "fuel economy rating" the right word or should this say "CO2 emission" or something similar instead? My knowledge of car metrics is quite limited so it might be good to check which technical term is correct. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

fuel economy rating is usually used 750h+ 17:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm mainly asking because our article Fuel economy in automobiles uses the units "kilometer per liter" and "miles per gallon" for fuel economy while we use "gram per kilometer", which confuses me. Is there a different sense in which the term "fuel economy rating" is used to measure CO2 since the source says "CO2: 298g/km"? My background in the relevant terminology is weak so I might need your help to untangle this confusion. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll try explain this best I can. The term "fuel economy rating" typically refers to how efficiently a vehicle uses fuel, measured in units like kilometers per liter or miles per gallon. On the other hand, CO2 emissions are usually measured in grams per kilometer. In the Sunday Times article, it seems they are referring to the car's CO2 emissions when they mention "298 grams per kilometer". I have changed it to CO2 emission-rating if that makes it more understandable. 750h+ 12:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• ...The vehicle was initially available exclusively with a six-speed 'Touchtronic' automatic transmission manufactured by ZF Friedrichshafen.[53] supported by Siler 2014
• Aston Martin introduced the Vanquish S, an updated version of the Vanquish, at the Los Angeles Auto Show in November 2016.[63][64] supported by both The Verge and Los Angeles Times.

More later. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Andy Palmer, the chief executive officer of Aston Martin, stated that the Vanquish S "[took] things a step further, confidently asserting itself within the Aston Martin range and distinguishing itself from the new DB11".[67][68] supported by both The Irish News and Kingston 2016a
• deliveries were also initiated in 2017 and 99 units were produced.[75] supported by Kingston 2016b
• Jeremy Clarkson, a prominent automotive journalist and television presenter, appreciated the car's styling, noting that "it's a lovely car [...] flowing and smooth when you want it to be, raucous and mad when you don't and utterly, bewitchingly beautiful always." Clarkson also praised its "delightful" interior, though one of his colleagues, A. A. Gill, disagreed, complaining that "it's like being in one of those executive-desk drawer dividers [...] I feel like I’m a roll of Sellotape".[81] supported by "2015 Aston Martin Vanquish". The Sunday Times
• Mike Duff of the magazine Car and Driver stated that the interior of the Vanquish S features "beautiful materials and [an] elegant design[,] mostly distracting occupants from the reality that there really isn't very much to play with". Duff also held concerns with the Vanquish's usage of the VH platform, noting that "there's plenty of the stuff you'd find on a mainstream car costing a tenth of the [price]".[84] supported by Duff 2016

  For the second quote, I would suggest including the last part of the quote (without the initial "there's") to make it clearer to the reader that he is talking about things missing, i.e., ...noting that "plenty of the stuff you'd find on a mainstream car costing a tenth of the [price of] a Vanquish S just isn't there"

done

• At the 2005 edition of the Geneva International Motor Show, Aston Martin debuted the Vantage, a sports car designed by Callum and Fisker.[12][13] the part about the motor show is covered by "Global convergence under way in the automotive world" The Los Angeles Times, the part about the design is covered by Vale 2022, p. 444.

More later. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• At the 2012 edition of the Concorso d'Eleganza Villa d'Este in May, Aston Martin revealed a concept car called the Project AM310 concept.[17][18] supported by Kozak 2012 and Lindberg 2012a
• The Vanquish, designed by Marek Reichman,[28] supported by "The brains behind the world's most beautiful cars". The Windsor Star.
• Length 4,720 mm (185.8 in)[4] supported by Gall 2012.
• Model code AM310 supported by "Aston Martin reveals AM 310 Vanquish". Calgary Herald.
• The first vehicles were delivered in early 2017.[73] supported by "Aston Martin Vanquish Zagato coupe is go". Bangkok Post.

Phlsph7 (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The spots checks look fine. There is only terminological doubt to be resolved. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Should be addressed. 750h+ 12:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks good now. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this Phlsph! 750h+ 16:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• "The Vanquish's aluminium structure is thirty per cent stiffer and lighter than that of its predecessor," The predecessor being the DBS?

yep

• "but its 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) acceleration has been changed to 4.2 seconds" Is there a reason not to say "has decreased"?

changed

• "Jeremy Clarkson, a prominent automotive journalist and television presenter," Is this how the source describes him?

nope, i've removed that

That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Wehwalt, all have been addressed! 750h+ 17:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Support Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much! 750h+ 01:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Spot-check upon request; I see Mike Christie's comments above but I'll do one on request only. What is the logic behind giving some page numbers in the "References" section a link to Google Books and others none? Also it doesn't seem like the article titles are shown consistently. What makes the books cited and Edmunds.com reliable sources? "Aston Martin Vanquish S Volante 2017 first drive" is throwing a "not used" error. If Car and Driver is a magazine, why is it in the websites section? Road & Track, Motor Trend, Car (magazine) and Autoweek too seem to be misplaced there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

When you say "What is the logic behind giving some page numbers in the "References" section a link to Google Books and others none?", the ones with Google Books links are actually books, whilst the ones with page numbers that don't link to Google Books are magazines. Edmunds is reliable; it has been used by other FAs and has been used by the New York Times here and here, and the books are reliable; James Taylor is a journalist who has written for Car and has also written various books; Andrew Noakes has written for several car magazines; and Matthew Vale has written many books and magazines like Classic & Sports Car. All of these books were reliably published. I have removed "Aston Martin Vanquish S Volante 2017 first drive". The magazines listed in the "magazines" section are print magazines; the others are online magazines. 750h+ 15:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, is this one done? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I kinda question whether online vs not online is an useful distinction for magazines, but that's a knitpick. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I've changed "Websites" to "Online magazines and websites" and I've changed "Magazines" to "Print magazines" if that helps. 750h+ 09:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129

Oppose on principle  :) Mike Christies' spot check was holding me off reviewing, but since that and the lesser source review seem to be satisfactorily resolved, I'll comment. I can understand Jugleman's point up there, and looking at that version, I'd probably say much the same. But—and possibly reflecting my own view of great writing—it is now greatly improved; smoother, less repetitious, and more flowing. Just a few suggestions, then.

• Why is the VH platform in "double quotes"? Per MOS:DOUBLE. The main article doesn't use them.

removed

• Could "revealed a concept car called the Project AM310 concept" be tweaked to "revealed a concept car called Project AM310"? It's tighter and loses the 'concept' repetition.

done

• Again, quotes? "Vanquish"

done

• Warks doesn't need mentioning with Gaydon again.

done

• "is based upon Aston Martin's "vertical/horizontal" platform" > "is based upon Aston Martin's VH platform", as it's already been fully introduced under the long name.

done

• "the Sunday Times" I think "The" is part of the title: the general rule is to follow the name of the publication as it actually appears on the masthead. Same with "the Boston Globe" later.

both done

• Purely to help those using AmEng and BrEng, could "boot be linked to Trunk (car)?

done

• "Aston Martin debuted the Vanquish Volante—the convertible version of the Vanquish—at" > This has already been mentioned back there; perhaps that first mention was superfluous, and this is the place to introduce the Volante.

done

• Bridge of Weir actually links to AM, so perhaps a link.

done

• So there were three different versions of the Zegato produced, all in limited batches of 99? Could these sentences be melded together somehow? ATM, they all seem to say more or less the same thing with a different car name.

i don't think i can meld them all together, but i added a sentence at the start if that makes it more understandable

That's pretty much it. On a second read, I see even less issue with the prose. It's neutral, sufficiently critical to swerve fandom neatly, and very readable even for those of us who don't know their gasket from their overflow. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 17:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, all i believe have been addressed 750h+ 23:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, great article, obviously support. SerialNumber54129 08:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! 750h+ 09:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.