Talk:Ford Pinto/GA1

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

Reviewer: Power~enwiki (talk · contribs) 18:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional comments
Thank you for beginning the GA review. "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each." The article non-neutrally relies too heavily on one source and its associated point of view: Schwartz, Gary T. (1991). "The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case"
 * Please examine the edit history and the talk page discussions for insight into the stability criterion and for editorial concerns of other editors.
 * With regard to evaluating the stability of this article. please note the article is currently semi-protected. Also, the talk page of this article has a short 45 day archive period. The talk page gives a impression of stability. Please review recent archives for additional opinions of editors on the quality of this article.
 * With regard to the good article neutrality criteria, this article has serious issues.

Schwartz' point of view, over-represented by the over-reliance on this source, may be summarized (from Schwartz 1991): "... the Ford Pinto case ... can be properly referred to as 'mythical.'" Schwartz is cited directly at least 20 times. (Meanwhile, at least one book-length treatment is ignored: Strobel, Lee (1980). Reckless Homicide? Ford's Pinto Trial. And Books. ISBN 9780897080224.) The article reads as if Schwartz' point of view has been adopted by Wikipedia as the official Wikipedia point of view on the Ford Pinto. PrefectF (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your ellipsis is misleading. The full sentence is "The events surrounding the controversy have been described both as a "landmark narrative" and mythical", and overall there doesn't seem to be a strong claim that the scandal was mythical.  And disruption from IP editors isn't relevant to stability, especially if the article will remain semi-protected. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality of coverage of the emergence of the safety issues
Another area in which the article non-neutrally summarizes noteworthy reliable sources is the coverage of the emergence of the controversy. The article expresses the point of view that the safety issues of this product were largely the result of rabble rousing by Mother Jones magazine. Noteworthy reliable sources offering a more balanced perspective were deleted, including The Washington Post, 60 Minutes, and 20/20.

"Among the first public attention to the fire safety of Ford automobiles was December 30, 1976 when columnist Jack Anderson and investigative journalist Les Whitten writing in The Washington Post said that Ford testing had revealed a fire hazard posed by the placement of the fuel tank behind the rear axle in some Ford models, and that 'thousands' had died or been disfigured in fires after crashes."









"On June 11, 1978, two days after Ford announced the Pinto recall, CBS televised a segment of 60 Minutes on the Ford Pinto. Host Mike Wallace opened saying, 'Is your car safe? Well, if you're driving a Ford Pinto, vintage 1971 to '76, the answer seems to be: Not as safe as it could be.' The report included an interview with Ford Pinto fire crash victim Richard Grimshaw, and an interview with Ford's vice president of safety, who said that the value of a human life used in cost-benefit analyses was set by the US government, not by Ford, and that the cost-benefit analysis was taken out of context. The ABC News television program 20/20 ran a segment on the Ford Pinto in June, 1978 featuring the Grimshaw tragedy."



PrefectF (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to comment regarding PrefectF (nice HHGTG reference ). The Pinto article and talk page are both limited to verified accounts. This was due to a large number of IP edits that were, based on WP:DUCK, considered to be HughD IP socks. Similar text was added to the article talk page by IP editors (socks of HughD) over the past few months. Springee (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * There's obvious quacking. I would like to read the Washington Post editorial referenced before dismissing his concerns completely.  The fact that 60 Minutes and 20/20 did features on the recall after it was announced isn't particularly interesting or relevant to the article; the pending NHTSA order would be more relevant on that matter than a pending 60 minutes piece. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * HughD caused quite a lot of headaches for the editors involved with the article. His concerns were discussed and dismissed.  The article that HughD is concerned about was discussed in this talk page discussion.[] Springee (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The excluded Washington Post article is a notable source by notable journalists, and it is an investigative journalism report, not an editorial. Mother Jones, a limited circulation specialty magazine is cited seven times in this article, while The Washington Post, 20/20, and 60 Minutes are cited not at all. According to multiple reliable sources, The Washington Post broke the story and the television shows contributed significantly to the national notoriety. The current coverage in the article is non-neutral, a non-neutral editorial bias in favor of the point of view that the Pinto safety issues were a myth promulgated by Mother Jones. PrefectF (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What I want to check is whether anything notable regarding the safety record happened between the first concerns about safety in 1973, and the well-publicized Mother Jones events of 1977. The fact that the source is "notable" isn't relevant, what's relevant is whether it says anything about the Pinto that isn't currently in the article. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 01:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your commitment to reviewing some of the sources non-neutrally excluded from this article. The most notable aspect of the subject of this article is the story of the fuel system safety. The subject is notorious. How it became notorious is a noteworthy aspect of the story. When and who broke the story, The Washington Post December 1976, is noteworthy. The current article non-neutrally demonizes Mother Jones magazine in support of the mythology point of view. Who made the fuel tank a household word is noteworthy, 20/20 and 60 Minutes. Also, the timing of 20/20 and 60 Minutes reporters preparing their reports is significant to our readers understanding the "voluntary" recall. Relatively few learned of the Ford Pinto fuel system safety issues from Mother Jones. PrefectF (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * power~enwiki, sorry you are being subjected to this. Here are some talk sections that discuss the questions being raised.  Note that at this point other talk page issues including a proposal to have HughD topic blocked were being floated. [].  The long passage quoted from Lee and Ernmann also discusses some of this.  What is notable in the discussions wasn't a dispute that the Anderson article covered the subject first, but that the MJ article was the one that clearly kicked off both the public outcry and the news frenzy.[].  Springee (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The desire to cite certain sources is completely unfounded; the WaPo article, 60 Minutes piece, and 20/20 piece are all primary sources in this context, and the secondary sources currently used are preferred. The concern that Wikipedia should cover the news coverage of the Ford Pinto safety issues as something separately notable from the safety issues themselves ... is weak but not completely frivolous.  The obvious place for this would be in "Reception and Criticism".  Having a brief mention/summary of the "Fuel system fires, recalls, and litigation" in that section might improve the reading of that section; it's somewhat awkward the 1975-1980 period is only discussed in the other section.  I don't think it's necessary for the GA review, the coverage in the "Fuel system fires, recalls, and litigation" is enough to meet "Broad in its coverage". power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 17:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And to be clear, I don't think any of PrefectF's suggestions are improvements. AFAICT there's no freely-available copy of the 60 Minutes piece, but if one existed, including it in the "External links" section would be helpful. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I've switched the production table from vertical to horizontal; I think it looks better that way, but if you disagree feel free to revert it. The table should have an inline reference; I'm certain one of the references in the prose section has this data but am not 100% sure which. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Removed the motorsports section. It was longer in the past but the need to cite information made it hard to confirm all but the most limited of facts.  It was easier just to remove it.  Did a minor rework to the receptions section.  I think it's reasonable to break the discussion of the car into reactions at the time (mostly car magazine reviews when the Pinto was new) and legacy mentions in the press (things like worst cars of all time lists etc).  I'm not sure the section title is the best but I can't think of anything better.  Springee (talk) 12:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)