Talk:Citroën XM

Unnamed section
This article needs to mention what year the facelift occurred! Ideally in the section about the differences between phase 1 and phase 2.LilRedCasanova 16:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Critical appraisal
I think the "Critical appraisal" section is far too long. Does anybody object if I delete it entirely? Biscuittin (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Too long, and I think it should appear after the basic description, suspension & engine sections. I can't see cause to delete it entirely though - such a section is an important part of coverage, especially for cars like Citroëns that tend to polarise an audience into fans and critics. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.249.6 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's 6,000 words long and could be replaced by three paragraphs. "At launch the XM was reviewed favourably, with Car magazine saying X. As time went on, however, it developed a reputation for electrical gremlins, and by the end of production Top Gear described it as Y". Heck, that's two sentences and it gets across 99% of the gist. In its current form it's an unreadable wall of text that makes XM owners look obsessive. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It does go on a bit.  And then some.   On the other hand reducing it into something more readable and punchier WITHOUT LOSING any of the beef will be seriously difficult and time consuming, which is presumably why no one did it yet.   If you're volunteering, I wish you success.   But please  ... don't rush the job!   Regards Charles01 (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes CA too long, but there's meat hiding in there - created a few new categories to pull them out. The good news is that on a smartphone, this 74,000 byte article (!) gets cut down to size with Critical Appraisal just being one line.PLawrence99cx (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Poor article
This entire goes on and one, but is poorly constructed around original research and synth. It could really use a entire scrub.842U (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say delete the critical appraisal section (huge and mostly pointless), but please tread carefully. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  12:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

American build dates
Why is it important to specify the American build dates in the infobox for a predominantly European car? Seems simpler to just include the global number. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is just nonsense added by a typical low-grade vandal - they have been spraying these faked dates across numerous articles. I can't be bothered any longer, IP vandalism is simply too much to deal with.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  04:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

DIRAVI power steering section
The section about DIRAVI seems very out of place here. It's entirely oriented towards explaining a system that has its own separate article and, according to some of the article text under suspension, was only present on a very specific set of the XMs anyway. May I propose its complete removal from this article in favor of an appropriate sentence and wikilink under Design Advances? Corqe (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I think the main problem with this article is the completely excessive "Critical Appraisal" section. I am a Citroën lover and I lean inclusionist, but I say delete that entire section. Thanks,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  21:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)