Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Howmet TX/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This peer review discussion has been closed.
(Listed under two headings because it really covers both sports and technology)

I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to go to GA with it, but want some aid on a few things. First, I'm not sure if I've overused some of my sources, and can possibly eliminate the inline citation in a few places. Second, some measurement conversions have been left undone, and I'm unsure if I should keep them this way or convert them as well.

Also, any other suggestions will be more than welcomed.

Thanks, The359 (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Like it a lot, some minor comments.

  • FIA - for some non-experts it's unclear what this organisation means, perhaps expand before using the acronym (although I know you have to have a vague grip on french...!)
Done
  • In the lead, perhaps worth clarifying which competition the car won its races in?
Done Specified that they were Sports Car Club of America events.
  • Front on image has a fragment for caption so remove the full stop.
  • "...to win over the public or to win at Le Mans respectively." - respectively? Not sure that's needed.
I was meaning to imply that the Chrysler Turbine that I mentioned first was a street car for the public, hence trying to win over public demand, while the Rover-BRM was a race car attempting to win Le Mans. Hence, both cars failed to "win" in their respective areas.
  • Probably worth providing a context for the individuals you introduce, like Parnelli Jones - it helps a non-expert understand the background.
Done
  • Put citations in numerical order (you have a [4][3] right now).
Done
  • Any reason Mk. 9 is in bold?
Not particularly, just that the car could sometimes be refered to as a McKee Mk.9, so I figured it could be bolded like the car's proper name. Removed it now however.
  • "Group 6 formula" - this doesn't make a lot of sense to the non-expert again. Consider linking or expanding.
Done Tried expanding it a bit to be easier to understand. Would link if we had the much needed article on it...
  • Expand SCCA before using it as an acronym (and add (SCCA) after the expansion).
Done
  • "Now that the Howmet TX was proven to be a capable competitor" - reads a little original reasearch-esque!
Tried to make it a bit more factual. Merely saying that it was proven a winning competitor after it had already won one event.
  • "The fuel system was not able to give the car full power" - rephrase - fuel systems provide fuel, not power surely? I know what you're saying but this could be reworded.
Done Clarified.
  • Goodwood festival image caption is a fragment, remove full stop.
  • A wider range of references is recommended, you have lots of citations in the article but most of them point to the same article [1]...
I've been looking for some, but unfortunately a lot of sources just seem to repeat the same thing. I'll keep looking though.

Hopefully some of this will help on the way to GA/FA. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you much, your review is helpful. The359 (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]