Talk:Holden Apollo/GA1

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

I will be reviewing this article for GAN shortly (as soon as I finish reading it). Don't worry, I generally won't bite :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

—Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * In section 1, paragraph 2: "modeling sharing"—do you mean "model sharing"? I caught a couple of nasty typos ("manufacture in" for "manufacturing", etc.); you may want to go over the article again and check for more. Also, there are five links to disambiguation pages that should be pointed at more specific targets if possible. I would avoid piping "Toyota Camry" to "Toyota Scepter" in the second-generation infobox; naming is already explained ("They too were a badge engineered product..."), and the current linking is a bit confusing. In "JP", first paragraph: "mildly revamped" is an odd choice of words; "continued on unchanged" is redundant :)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * It seems this was a pretty popular car. Can you go into a bit more detail on how popular, e.g. with sales figures and whatnot, or is this information unavailable?
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Do we really leave license plates visible in car photos? I'd assumed they should be blanked out for use in Wikipedia. I'm wondering why the lead image is of a station wagon, when this was primarily a sedan and the station wagon model was also available.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article is in very good shape. It goes into a lot of detail (but not unreasonably so); is well-illustrated; the references are to good sources, and citations are properly formatted. I believe it meets all GA criteria, and would have passed it outright if not for the minor concerns outlined above.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article is in very good shape. It goes into a lot of detail (but not unreasonably so); is well-illustrated; the references are to good sources, and citations are properly formatted. I believe it meets all GA criteria, and would have passed it outright if not for the minor concerns outlined above.


 * Thank you for a comprehensive review User:Fvasconcellos. For the typos—typing quickly with accuracy is not my forte, and I overlook most typos when reading due to speed. I have fixed up all but two of the disambiguation issues—these are only listed on the respective pages, but do not have articles. As for the linking, it is the best compromise. We cannot have separate articles for a car sold by a different name with no actual changes. It is more confusing to have a non-linked namepiping everything to Toyota Scepter makes the most sense to me. The other "criterion 1" issues listed have been addressed.


 * "It seems this was a pretty popular car. Can you go into a bit more detail on how popular, e.g. with sales figures and whatnot, or is this information unavailable?" — Compared to the Camry/Scepter that the Apollo derived from, the Apollo sold at around 20% of the Camry's sales (I do not have a specific ref, but I can remember reading that UAAI badge engineered cars sold at around this number). Actual number have not been released. In the book, 50 Years of Holden which is heavily used as a reference, the author states that no production numbers are available, and I cannot find any either.
 * All right, thanks. You could mention that "no production numbers are available" :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Do we really leave license plates visible in car photos? I'd assumed they should be blanked out for use in Wikipedia." — I do (for my uploads), and there is no Australian law saying I cannot. I only take photos from public property, and freedom of panorama allows me to do so. In Australia, television and newspapers only blur registration plates if the vehicle is part of some controversy, like carrying a suspected criminal or something.
 * Hmm. All right, I'd assumed otherwise from WP:CARPIX ("In pictures of private cars, license plates and other personally-identifying information shall be blurred or edited out") and other articles. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "I'm wondering why the lead image is of a station wagon, when this was primarily a sedan and the station wagon model was also available." — as per WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions: "The image selected for an article's top (lead) infobox does not need to show any particular version or generation of the vehicle, such as the latest, the last, the first, the best-selling, or any other." OSX (talk • contributions) 06:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem. I'm wondering how I missed this particular provision when I saw the one above... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

All righty, then! As I mentioned yesterday, I would have passed this article outright if not for these minor issues. Since they have mostly been addressed (the license plate issue is a project style guideline, and compliance with such guidelines is not required for GAs per WP:WIAGA), I am passing Holden Apollo as a Good article. Congratulations, and good luck on FAC when you feel up to it :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)