Talk:Flexible-fuel vehicles in Brazil/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments
This article appears to be very close in being a GA-class article, in that it appears to be well-referenced, well-illustrated and comprehensive. I've now going to do a more detailed review. At this stage I will be mostly concentrating on "problems", if any. So this section could be quite short. Pyrotec (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:Lead -
 * This is well referenced. However:
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC) - First sentence is referenced, ref 1 gives the 2010 figures, so presumably ref 2 gives the figures from 2003-2009? Ref 2 is a 133-page PDF report, so page numbers should be provided in the citation.


 * Technology -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC) - Ref 13 (The Royal Society. January 2008. http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=28632. Policy Document 01/08, pp. 35-36) seems to have a broken web link.

... stopping for now, to be continued later. Pyrotec (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I will take care of these details tonight. Thanks!-Mariordo (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Done!--Mariordo (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC) - Ref 18 (Revista Quatro Rodas) seems to have a broken web link.
 * Ref 23 (www.eere.energy.gov) seems to have a broken web link.
 * Removed (redundant), there were other RS to support this content.-Mariordo (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The old reference 18 was used twice. I'm willing to accept that the first use (a) was redundant but the second use (b) "Therefore, all Brazilian automakers have optimized flex vehicles to run with gasoline blends from E20 to E25, and with a few exceptions, these FFVs are unable to run smoothly with pure gasoline which causes engine knocking, as vehicles traveling to neighboring South American countries have demonstrated." is now unreferenced. I'll accept that reference 23 is redundant. Pyrotec (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As I explained below, such reference is no longer available except for a reproduction of the entire content in a blog in Portuguese, so I tried to use this url in liue of the original, but the site is blacklisted by wikipedia (I cannot link it for the same reason but Google in Portuguese for "Gasolina sem alcool Fórum hardMOB"). By the way, that article talked about tips for using flex-fuels in neighboring Argentina, recommending adding a small amount of regular pharmaceutical grade alcohol and mentions the two models than can run on pure gasoline (already referenced by other sources). The only alternative I see is to remove the part of that content strictly dependent on that source (travel to other countries), so the trim paragraph will read:


 * Therefore, all Brazilian automakers have optimized flex vehicles to run with gasoline blends from E20 to E25, and with a few exceptions, so these FFVs are unable to run smoothly with pure gasoline which causes engine knocking, as vehicles traveling to neighboring South Americancountries have demonstrated with the exception of two models that are specifically built with a flex-fuel engine optimized to operate also with pure gasoline (E0), the Renault Clio Hi-Flex and the Fiat Siena Tetrafuel.

If this is not satisfactory, please provide some guidance on how to proceed.--Mariordo (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation. I entered that string into Google (I use English) and came up with this blog (amongst others) (I can't add it as Wikipedia blocked the web link). I can't accept a blog (or even wikipedia) as a WP:Reliable source. If you make the suggested change to the text, I'll accept it and award the article GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Done! -Mariordo (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Production and market share -
 * Looks OK.

... stopping for now, to be continued later. Pyrotec (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Latest developments -
 * Flex-fuel motorcycles -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC) - Ref 39 (Web motors) has a broken web link.
 * Restored!-Mariordo (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This now concludes my Initial review. Most of the problems concern broken web links, and some have beeen fixed. I'm therefore putting the reivew On Hold for these problems to be addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All fixes done. A couple of sources were no longer available (I google in Portuguese), but remaining refs are enough to support content (over referencing!). Thanks, I appreciate the time you took to review the article.-Mariordo (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Overall comments
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing an informative, well-referenced and well-illustrated Good Article: you appear to have produced all the illustrations as well as the article. Pyrotec (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking your time for such detailed review, I appreciate it.-Mariordo (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)