Talk:Vanajan Autotehdas/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 22:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I will review. I will work through the sections, leaving the lead until last. If you are addressing issues raised in the review, please mark what you have done with the {done} template or something similar. I am not in favour of striking through the text, as it makes it difficult to read, and the review is an important record of why the article was passed or failed.

Foundation

 * No issues

Start of production

 * "The original idea was to build ..." is repeated twice in the first paragraph. Suggest "Quarrying work for an underground machine workshop began ..." or similar, as we already know that the factory was to be built underground.
 * ✅ --Gwafton (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "the entire production area was built overground." Overground is a adjective, so you can have "an overground factory", but not "it was built overground". (Unlike underground, which is also an adverb.) Suggest "... was build above ground."
 * ✅ --Gwafton (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Architectural office Alvar Aalto". Should that be "Architectural officer"?
 * ✅ No, architectural office is correct, but I put it differently and hope that it is clearer now. --Gwafton (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Much clearer. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "the Ministry of Trade and Industry terminated the contract from the end of 1946". The only contract mentioned so far was the one for construction of the factory. This presumably was a contract for the supply of vehicles. Needs some explanation.
 * ✅ --Gwafton (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Sisu S-22s became available in 12 SAT locations in Finland" Suggest "Sisu S-22s became available for sale at 12 SAT locations in Finland" if that is what it means.
 * ✅ --Gwafton (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

From Yhteissisu to Vanajan Autotehdas

 * No issues

First Vanaja production

 * "White M2 Half-Track vehicles". Suggest White would be better as White Motor Company on first occurence, since it is not a company I have ever heard of.
 * ✅ --Gwafton (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Kytölä's idea was to convert them into field or forest clearing vehicles, or Four-wheel drive lorries by replacing the tracks with a conventional rear axle." The single comma makes it unclear whether only the four-wheel drive lorries had the rear axle replaced. If both types had a replacement axle, then use "or four-wheel drive lorries, by replacing..." If only the latter has the rear axle replaced, the nature of the conversion of the forest clearing vehicles needs to be explained.
 * ✅ The clearing vehicles remained half-track, they were just equipped with special superstructures for ditch digging or whatsoever. I rewrote the sentence and hope it reads what I ment ioned . --Gwafton (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Finally, VAT sold 359 units as half-tracks and 60 were converted 4×4 or 4×2 vehicles." Finally is not a good choice here, since this is a summary of what happened. Suggest "In total, VAT sold 359 units as half-tracks, and 60 were converted into 4×4 or 4×2 vehicles."
 * ✅ --Gwafton (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Growth and recession in 1950s

 * "92 were sold under name of Sisu S-22 or S-22K" Should be "under the name..."
 * ✅ --Gwafton (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "vehicles scheduled for delivery that year were delayed until to the following year". Remove surplus "to".
 * ✅ --Gwafton (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "For a short time, VAT represented Italian firm Ansaldo-Fossati '​s clearing tractors." This is not very clear. Some expansion required.
 * ✅ Is it more readable now? --Gwafton (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am still not sure what "represented" means in this context. Did they act as agents, selling the tractors on behalf of the Italian company? If so, "For a short time, VAT acted as agents for clearing tractors..." would be better.
 * They imported them and then sold to end users. What is the best way to tell this? --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, how about "For a short time, VAT imported and marketed clearing tractors..."? Bob1960evens (talk) 09:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Gwafton (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "This invention enabled an additional load of 2.5 tonnes and the entire load on the tandem could be moved on the fore axle using an electro-hydraulic system." Suggest "...enabled an additional load of 2.5 tonnes to be carried and the entire load on the tandem could be moved to the fore axle..."
 * ✅ --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Vehicles for the Finnish Defence Forces

 * "They were ordered in a few dozen pieces between 1962 and 1964" "pieces" does not sound right. Is that a few dozen orders, or a few dozen vehicles? Clarify.
 * ✅. Few dozen vehicles. --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have altered it to "A few dozen vehicles were ordered between 1962 and 1964..." Bob1960evens (talk) 09:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Exporting efforts

 * "...which built a tourist bus coach on it." Bus and coach mean more or less the same. So "...which build a tourist bus body on it" or maybe try rewording it.
 * ✅. I thought that bus coach means the same as bus body, so that chassis + coach = bus. Anyway, fixed. --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In normal English, a bus is used for stopping services and a coach is usually used for touring. Sometimes bodywork is referred to as coachwork, but coach is not normally used to mean body. I hope that helps. Bob1960evens (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, this helps. Thank you for the clarification. --Gwafton (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "...but not a single vehicle was sold" sounds awkward. Suggest "...but no vehicle sales resulted from it" or similar.
 * ✅. --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Specialising in 1960s

 * "when MBA Jaakko Jarimo took the post" MBA is a qualification, and so should not precede the person's name. Either leave it out, or try something like "when Jaakko Jarimo, who held a Master of Business Administation degree, took the post."
 * ✅. Mr Jarimo lost his title in the text. --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * " The volume model, however, was VAK series with about nine tonnes payload" Ought to be "...was the VAK series...", but I am not sure about "the volume model". Was this just the one they sold the most of, or was this the basis of the custom trucks? Clarify.
 * ✅. It was a nine-tonne variant of VAK series. Is it good now? --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. Bob1960evens (talk) 09:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "the total weight was 10.6 tonnes with a special permit" What was the nature of the special permit? Why was it required?
 * A normal homologation was not enough because the vehicles did not fulfill the contemporary requirements. Speculatively, it might mean in this case a too short wheelbase in relation to gross weight. The special permit means an exemption begged from the officials. How to put it? --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If we do not know the details of why the special permit was needed, I suggest "the total weight was 10.6 tonnes, and use of these vehicles on public roads required a special permit." Bob1960evens (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Gwafton (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "A typical feature in Vanajas was overmeasured structures" I think that should be over-engineered, rather than overmeasured.
 * To me over-engineered sounds like excessive engineering efforts (I might be wrong, as I am not a native English speaker). Overmeasured in this context means just exceptionally high safety factors. I did not touch it, have you got ideas how to put it differently? --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Over-engineered means that they were more robust than was strictly necessary. How about "Vanajas were noted for their exceptionally high safety features, which were robust rather than optimised"? Bob1960evens (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. I decided to use over-engineered after your explanation. --Gwafton (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "The seat had comprehensive adjustment possibilities" sounds wrong. Try "The seat had several ways in which it could be adjusted" or similar.
 * ✅. --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Two-axle lorries were available in 4×2 and 4×4 layouts..." This is a single sentence paragraph. Suggest combining it with the previous paragraph.
 * ✅. --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "The order of 250 vehicles was funded by a loan from the IBRD..." Should be "The order for 250 vehicles", and IBRD should be shown in full on first occurence (ie International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)).
 * ✅. --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "4–5% of the newly registered heavy lorries in Finland were Vanaja's" Vanajas is a plural, and so does not need the apostrophe, which implies the lorries belonged to Vanaja.
 * ✅. --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "an excessive model diversity" would be better as "an excessive diversity of models".
 * ✅. --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Factory and production

 * "they were fitted with suspension and axles then turned the right side up" Maybe "...axles, and then..." or try rewording.
 * ✅. --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Suppliers

 * "Ford V8 engines were mounted to fire engines" Suggest "Ford V8 engines were used for fire engines" or similar.
 * ✅. --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Few Vanajas were equipped with the Perkins R6 or the Ford Trader 510E" I think this should be "A few Vanajas..."
 * ✅. --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "which were copied from Fuller" As Fuller is a red link, is it possible to expand this a little? Were they a Finnish engineering company?
 * It is (was) an American company, nowadays owned by Eaton Corporation. Fuller non-synchronised gearboxes are seen in many American vehicles. This is all I know about the firm. --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So how about "which were copied from the transmissions made by the American company Fuller..." and wikilink to Eaton Corporation, as that article mentions Fuller as a brand. Bob1960evens (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Gwafton (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Bus chassis production

 * "The company made two chassis models VAT-4800" reads awkwardly. Suggest "The company made two prototype chassis, which were designated model VAT-4800" or similar.
 * ✅. --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "The company conducted a number of experiments with the structure; one example is a bus with frameless structure in which the beams were replaced by a lighter structure" There are three occurrences of structure, in quick succession, and it is not entirely clear what this means. Have a go at rewording it.
 * ✅. Is it good now? --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Model nomenclature

 * "They are not model numbers, although they are often incorrectly referred as such" should be "referred to as such".
 * ✅. --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

End of Vanaja

 * "Probably soon after this the major owners of VAT started discussions..." This is unclear as to whether it might have been "soon after this" or whether it might have been "they started discussions". If we know they started discussions, try "At about this time the major owners..." If we are not sure whether the discussions took place, try "This may have led the major owners of VAT to start discussions..."
 * ✅. --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "The chairman of VAT started to be increasingly in contact with the SAT manager Tor Nessling" Suggest "The chairman of VAT held regular meetings with the SAT manager Tor Nessling" or similar.
 * ✅. --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "The situation was indefensible for VAT" Not sure what indefensible means in this context. Clarify.
 * ✅. Financial situation. --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Still not sure about indefensible. Does it mean that because the financial situation was poor, they had no option but to merge, or what? Bob1960evens (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the financial figures show the situation. I changed indefensible → unsustainable, does it make the sentence any clearer? I had to add the note about moving decimals of the Finnish mark in 1963 in name of clarity, because the article contains financial data both in old and new marks. --Gwafton (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unsustainable makes a lot more sense. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "becoming the third-biggest owner of the company" Suggest becoming the third-largest shareholder of the company."
 * ✅. --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Some customers were appalled because the last long-nosed Vanajas were equipped with cabin from Jyry-Sisu" It is unclear why cabins from Jyry-Sisu would cause customers to be appalled. Were the cabins a good thing, or a bad thing? Also cabin should be "cabins".
 * ✅. Changed appalled → upset and cabins into plural. They were shocked because there was something from Sisus in Vanajas. Lorry drivers can be so sentimental sometimes. --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "The drop in the truck market was be short-lived" There has been no previous mention of a drop in the truck market. This needs some context, and it should be "was short-lived"
 * ✅ be . The context is in the previous sentence: there was leakage from Vanaja users to imported makes but the situation was soon fixed. --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * " strategic missteps by SAT" This should be "strategic mistakes".
 * ✅. --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "The Vanaja LK-series with a large, mid-placed engine was discontinued" Mid-placed does not sound right. Suggest "... with its large, centrally-mounted engine..." and wikilink to Mid-engine design.
 * ✅ with the exception that mid-engine design link placed to the context where first mentioned in the article. --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "rejected the Sisu options which were offered instead of Vanaja models of the same market segment". The final phrase "of the same market segment" is wrong gramatically. I think it should be removed, as clearly both types were offered to bus operators.
 * Unchanged. There was a number of bus market segments: city buses, long-distance buses, tourist buses and all in different sizes and engine layouts. How should I change it? --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * How about "Sisu offered buses to replace the Vanaja models in all of the market sectors, but a number of bus operators, including TKL, rejected them." Bob1960evens (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ without market sectors. After reconsidering this part I think it is clear and informative enough without telling about the market segments or sectors. --Gwafton (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "The number of Vanaja lorries and bus chassis produced by the company was 7,140 pieces" Suggest reworking to get rid of "pieces". So "The company produced a total of 7,140 lorries and bus chassis."
 * ✅. I changed it but not exactly like that. Note that the Vanajas produced between 1969 and 1971 (after the merger) were actually not produced by VAT but SAT. Is the sentence fine now? --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "sold under the Vanaja brand together with lorries" I am not sure what "together with lorries" means here. Delete it?
 * I changed it slightly. It means trailers which were sold together with the vehicles (in case someone wanted to buy the whole juggernaut from one place). How does it look like now? --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I have copy-edited the final two paragraphs to save documenting the issues here.

From Sisu-Hämeenlinna to the present

 * "though in 1989 a small batch was made and later equipped with Ajokki coaches and sent to a customer in the Soviet Union" Suggest "although in 1989 a small batch was made and later fitted with Ajokki coach bodies for delivery to a customer in the Soviet Union" to improve the grammer and avoid two "and"s in quick succession.
 * ✅. --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * " The Sisu terminal tractors became famous worldwide for their innovative solutions" Solutions should be "design" I think.
 * ✅. --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacy

 * No issues

Summary of review so far
This seems like a lot of issues, but most of them are relatively minor, and are to do with grammar rather than content. I note that both the previous Peer review and FA review suggested that the article needed a good copy-edit, and wonder if I should have offered to do that rather than review it. However it is done now. I have a few more things to check before the review is completed. In terms of the content, it seems to be well-organised and thorough in its coverage of the subject matter.
 * It doesn't matter if you do it as copy-edit or GA review, the most important thing is that the quality is improved. Good to hear that you find the structure good and coverage sufficient, I put a lot of effort on those. Just let me know if you need more information about any part of the article. --Gwafton (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead
The lead section should serve as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. It should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. (See Manual_of_Style/Lead_section) For an article of this length, I would expect three or four reasonable sized paragraphs. Obvious points to mention are profitability in the 1950s, the move to diesel engines, customisation, air brakes following the accident, total number of units produced, terminal tractors and maybe vintage vehicle enthusiasts.
 * I changed the lead section, how does it look like now? --Gwafton (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, here is an article about the bus accident in Finnish: fi:Kivisalmen linja-autoturma. --Gwafton (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The formal bit

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See comments above
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I do not have access to the printed works, but all of the text has been carefully sourced by inline citations, so I have assumed that the text accurately reflects the source material.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The subject matter is dealt with in a comprehensive fashion, with no obvious gaps in its coverage.
 * 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):
 * I have edited some of the captions to make them a little more informative and readable.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

To be continued. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking forward. --Gwafton (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I am now putting the article on hold. Thanks for the speedy way in which you have dealt with the issues so far. There are a couple of items still to be resolved, and the lead needs fixing. If you need more than the normal 7 days, do let me know, as I am aware that we are all volunteers, and have to fit Wikipedia around real life. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The real life will most likely allow me having time for a couple of evenings next week, I hope it will be enough to develop the article. Thank you for your support so far. --Gwafton (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * PS: I forgot to ask, in a reference such as Blomberg: Fuusio toteutuu. pp. 92–93; 96, what is the Fuusio toteutuu? Is it the title of the chapter? Bob1960evens (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right, that is the title of the chapter. --Gwafton (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

All of the issues listed have now been addressed. I have made a couple more minor copy edits, and am awarding the article GA status. Well done on producing an interesting and well-researched article. Keep up the good work! Bob1960evens (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)