Talk:DMC DeLorean/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 22:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

In progress. Look for comments end of this week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC) Overall the article is in decent shape, but it needs some extensive work to meet GA criteria. Given that the major issues are severe and I don't think can reasonably be addressed during a hold period, I'm failing the article at present. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * General and prose:
 * (often referred to simply as the "DeLorean", as it was the only model ever produced by the company)—I'm not sure we really need this clarifier, because it's not hard to figure out.
 * Per WP:LEADCITE I'm not sure the citations currently present in the lead are needed.
 * On the flip side, where are the precise numbers in the infobox from for the specific details and technical specifications?
 * Most quality issues were solved by 1982, and the cars were sold from dealers with a one-year, 12,000-mile (19,000 km) warranty.—What quality issues? The sentence before this is about the workers.
 * The DeLorean Motor Company went bankrupt in late 1982 following John DeLorean's arrest in October of that year on drug-trafficking charges. He was later found not guilty, but it was too late for the DeLorean to remain in production. This makes it sound like DMC went bankrupt because of DeLorean's arrest, rather than financial issues with the cars itself.
 * The main issue I see with the article is coverage issues (crit. 3). The article goes into exhaustive and frankly excessive detail in some points (I'm not sure why a few right-handed cars and two gold-plated cars each get subsections and multiple paragraphs) while neglecting others (the lead contains some of the only info about reception of the car, and there's next to nothing in the article proper.)
 * References:
 * Secondary to the issues with coverage, the sourcing in this article just doesn't appear up to snuff. There's a variety of what appear to be fansites/blogs/otherwise unreliable sources being used throughout, as well as issues with content simply not being cited at all (the above bit about DMC's bankruptcy, for example.) Citations are missing fields or are inconsistently formatted.
 * Media:
 * Most of the images look fine and are freely and appropriately licensed.
 * I'm a bit iffy on File:DMC Sticker.jpg and File:DMC12 clearance.jpg; they are claimed as own work and public domain because they were published without a copyright notice, but I have no way of verifying that is true or not. (They're also interrupting the text unnecessarily.)

Thank you very much for taking the time to review and provide such quality feedback regarding the article. Discussion on quality issues and reception of the vehicle indeed need development. The article is about the vehicle rather than the company but explanation surrounding the bankruptcy and JZD need cleanup. I'll work on cleaning up the lead per WP: LEADCITE as well as the IMG sizing on some of the larger images. The sourcing will take longer to review and cleanup. This will take time to find so I agree with your decision to fail the article at this time. Expandinglight5 (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I reduced the gold and right hand drive sections per the recommendation. It might stand some more editing, but I think it gave a good reduction. Much was minutia really more appropriate to an owners/enthusiasts web site than WP imho. MartinezMD (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I made a variety of improvements as well. I cleaned up the history section so it reads better and is now focused solely on the car as opposed to facts about the factory or company. I created a sales section as well as a reception section and a problem and issues section so all aspects of the vehicle are discussed. I cleaned up some WP: RS and fixed the formatting on the references in Further Reading so the format is now consistent. I rearranged some images and reduced the thumb size so pics don't interfere with other sections. Let me know if you think this is adequate to resubmit for GA. Expandinglight5 (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I further reduced the RHD section. There was excessive detail regarding taillights and turn signals that wasn't encyclopedic content. This was also supported by a fan page/blog and although the data was accurate, that support is not accepted by Wiki standards; WP:RS. Expandinglight5 (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Expandinglight5 (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I have further scrubbed all the references removing and revising for WP: RS. I believe the article is in good shape for renomination for good status review. Expandinglight5 (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)