Talk:OVIK

Large cleanup and questionable acceptance.
I'm uncertain why this was allowed out of AfC as there were a lot of major issues with it. I have done my best to clean it up. Removed excessive bolding, removed unneeded infobox and a couple of puffery words. My major concern is the lack of decent references. All the sources that I can see are primary or PRs except one and it involves one of the cars more than the company. I'm sure this company is probably notable, but we'd love to see better sourcing.

Further, the product listing might be a bit excessive and really distracts from the article. But I'll let another editor give feedback on that. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sometimes an experienced reviewer takes the view that the community may perform a better cleanup than the contributing editor. This is a valid reason to take a gamble on acceptance. I do that at times. Sometimes we each make a mistake. I do that at times. Neither of those two matters hugely because the problems can always be cleared up later. An inexperienced reviewer can cause problems with early acceptance.
 * In this case the community (that is you) have done a good job in cleaning it up. This is almost an invariable truth. Even a nomination for deletion immediately after acceptance is not a disaster. It often results in a far better article. Fiddle   Faddle  17:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Name change
I've gone ahead and change the name of this article to 'OVIK'. The title beforehand was 'OVIK Crossway'. The Crossway is, as far as I know, one of many models that the company OVIK make. Since this article seems to cover the whole company rather than just the one model I think it's appropriate to have the name reflect that. If anyone disagrees I would be happy to discuss. QuadColour (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Article needs a lot of work
Whilst I did just change the article to the past tense, due to the company being dissolved, it still needs a lot of work. Links to the original company website need updating (site is no longer online). The article still reads somewhat like a puff piece, despite previous editors efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.189.92 (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)