Talk:Suzuki Hayabusa/GA1

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

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 17:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

in progress Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 17:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Overall, the article is a solid start, but there are some significant issues that need to be addressed before this article could meet the threshold of good article quality. Given the issues above being systemic to the article, I'm failing the review. It can be brought back to WP:GAN any time the issues have been addressed. If you have further questions, you can ping me or hit me up on my talk page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Lead :
 * You don't need citations in the lead for what looks like a lot of this information (WP:LEADCITE)—in particular, some of the citations are actively confusing (why is it necessary to put citations in the middle of the sentence The conditions under which this limitation was adopted led to the 1999? It makes it more confusing about what's being supported, not really less.
 * Now, a direct quote like Koblenz's should be cited in the lead, but I'm also left wondering why ultimately 18% of the lead's sentence count is a single reviewer's opinion.
 * The lead doesn't adequately cite the material present in the article as a whole; it's almost entirely taken up with speed information, not covering design, the different models, the other uses of the engine, etc.
 * Prose :
 * There's issue with non-neutral or peacock words throughout, for example "stunning acceleration" as well as weasel words like "Many riders have found..." that need to be excised or turned into quotes and properly cited. Likewise, the reliance on individual reviews to make broad statements about the bike's reception seems like an issue with non-neutral point of view.
 * At times, the article tends to fall into excessively technical breakdowns. I'm not really sure why different publications' ratings of its performance have to be given their own tables, for instance.
 * References :
 * There's content in the body (and infobox) of this article that is apparently unsourced.
 * The article devolves into a series of stubby one-line pseudoparagraphs that either aren't important enough to be in the article or should be fleshed out.
 * A lot of sources are dead and need proper archives and  applied to their references.
 * Likewise, I don't think some of the use of sources is up to snuff. For example, to cite When first shown to the press in 1999, the first Hayabusas made a profound impression, this source is used, but it doesn't really provide a neutral viewpoint asserting what the article is saying. Some of this stuff may be resolved by removing the peacock phrasing, but I'd double-check the sweeping statements to see if they can really be attributed to a single source.