Talk:Akira Nakai

Review by User:Dr Aaij and others

 * "Looks boring"--it's one single paragraph. That does not help the reader.
 * Subject needs to be bolded, ref section missing: draft needs to consider the Manual of Style (WP:MOS).
 * Consider higher formality level of style (you know what I mean).
 * That's all I got now--look for more and more reliable sources. Dr Aaij (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Review by User:PeterYatesVT

 * The leading sentence makes it more interesting to read.
 * The paragraph is still hard to read, so maybe include some separations and something appealing to the eye.
 * The paragraph is really good and interesting.
 * Citations are good and the sources seem to be good and reliable, just need more sources that are good. PeterYatesVT (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Review by User:Amay1355
Amay1355 (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The paragraph was interesting, don't get me wrong. However, it is a lot to read in one paragraph.
 * I found that Nakai being in a video game was very interesting!
 * I'd like to see a cool lead with a great ending sentence!

Review by User:Shalor (Wiki Ed)
Hi! I wanted to add a bit of my own review:


 * Be very careful with tone. Avoid words or phrases like unique, "passion for", and admirable (or any similar words), as these are seen as a bit inherently promotional since they're so frequently used in marketing and press release kits. They're also seen as personal and subjective to the reader - what may be unique or admirable to one may not be to the next person. Unfortunately, this article comes across as kind of non-neutral.
 * Words like admitted are kind of tricky, since it can sometimes be seen as us leading the reader to see a claim or statement in a specific light. For example, the word itself has certain pre-conceived notions attached to it, such as a feeling of guilt, like they're admitting to doing something bad or unfavorable. I would instead use words like "stated" since it comes across as more neutral.
 * Avoid using Wikipedia and wikis in general as a source, as the vast majority of them are unusable as a source because anyone can edit and there's either no editorial oversight or not enough to satisfy criteria on Wikipedia. As such, neither of the two wikis you used in the article are usable as a source.
 * On the topic of sourcing, also make sure that the sourcing explicitly states the claims and assertions made in the article. If it doesn't specifically say something, then the claim shouldn't be in the article, even if the source seems to imply the claim as that would be seen as original research.

I hope that this helps! Notes aside, this really is a neat person! I'm not a car person or a racer by any means, but people like Nakai are undeniably interesting! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Wheelbase
You cannot "widen the wheelbase" of a car. You can widen the track width or you can lengthen the wheelbase. The former is the width between r and l wheelcenters (and is easily changed by altering hubs or even just by using wider wheels), the latter is the distance between front and rear axles, and requires either stretching the body or relocating the axles. I assume track is what is meant, but I don't know for sure so I can't change it. And I see this has been mentioned before, but the tone of this text is entirely to informal and "chatty". It should be rewritten in drier, more formal "encyclopedic" tone. More info about mechanical modifications, as opposed to merely visual and body modifications would be nice. I gather an RWB is extensively rebuilt with powerful turbo engines, upgraded gearboxes, suspension mods, interior, rollbars, etc. This sounds like they just bolt on some cool bumpers and body kits on a stock car.

64.223.109.81 (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)