Talk:Proton Saga/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bob talk 21:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 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):
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Hello, to assess this article, I thought it would be a good idea to compare it to current car GAs. I have come to the conclusion that while this probably would once have passed GA standards (i.e the Talbot Samba article is an older car GA of comparible quality), looking at current standards like Holden Apollo and Lexus LS, this isn't quite up to scratch.

First off, I appreciate that this article is on a topic that perhaps does not generate huge numbers of references, but I feel that at present, the article is rather short of references to reliable sources to be considered above "start" class. There are far too many uncited paragraphs throughout the article - for example, the paragraph about the Iswara only has one citation, which only verifies that the model exists and what spec it had. There are even a few "citation needed" templates in places. Other sections use references such as "New Car Shopper.au", which although it cites some of the information, doesn't look like a very reliable source to me. It is this lack of references that is my primary reason for failing the article.

Secondly, the prose is rather poor. For instance, I don't feel some elements are very clear - "to avoid R&D costs" is in the opening paragraph. I know this means "research and development", but would most readers? The whole opening barely mentions the second generation model, and also does not adequately summarise the article contents. It also has a few nuggets of information not found in the article body.

Some paragraphs from the section about the latest version appear to be lifted from a Proton publicity brochure: "The new Saga is bigger and has ample room for 5 Malaysian adults of average height." How is a Malaysian adult different from another nationality? Also, some sentences just appear to have been thrown in without context; one uncited line mentions an electric version of the latest edition, but this is not expanded upon, leaving it hanging as a single sentence, despite potentially being quite an interesting development for the manufacturer.

There are also paragraphs that I suspect may be Google translations from Malaysian: "However, many public complaints have been filed to this version including interior quality problems such as broken power window switches and uncontrollable flow of the air-conditioning system due to Proton's carelessness in skipping quality tests to ship the car quickly from overwhelming demand during promotion time". That's not cited, and is poorly-written; without a citation, it also fails NPOV guidelines.

I don't feel there is enough scope to improve this within seven days, so I'm going to fail the article, but don't let this put you off developing the article further, and it could be re-nominated in the future. Thanks. Bob talk 21:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)