User:Freebeast24/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Ford GT

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to do the Ford GT's article because it was listed as an option under the evaluation list, and I think that second generation of the GT is one the best hypercars ever, certainly the best American one. It matters because this is the car that finally beat Ferrari at Le Mans in the 60's and saved Ford as a brand. My impression of the article was that it was very technical and was more like an spec sheet and sales brochure instead of a driving review.

Evaluate the article
The lead section clearly defines the topic at hand concisely. It doesn't, however, go over the major sections of the article. It also does include some information that isn't present in the rest of the article; there is some info about what movie the car was in, which isn't mentioned again.

The article's content is relevant to the topic. They talk about the different generations of the car, the different editions for each generation, the development cycle and performance specifications, etc. They also talk about the racing history and results that the car has. This content is up to date, and I can't think of any more info that someone could add to the article other than maybe critical reception/ reviews. The article does not deal with one of the equity gaps.

The article is neutral and doesn't really have any position on the topic at hand. Most of the information is factual and therefore is pretty free of bias. The info in the article is backed up by sources like news websites, auto news pages like MotorTrend, Autoweek, Jalopnik, etc. Some of the data concerning the performance and engine specifications are only available from Ford themselves, so that data isn't from a secondary source. However, Ford's official data is the most officially tested info available, and some of the data is backed up by independent testers. All of the sources are diverse and current (or at least the most recently useful info). I don't think that any other sources need to be used, and all of the links work.

The article is well written and organized and is free of grammatical and spelling errors.

The pictures show several angles of the car, along with photos of many of the special editions and the different race liveries the car has worn across different series. There could be more photos of the interior, and maybe more photos of the car in different drive modes with different aerodynamic setups, since those are mentioned but not shown.

The talk page of the article has been active since 2008, where the discussion is about a question over the actual production start date of the first gen GT. There are discussions about what to remove and add. There was even a full-blown argument over whether or not one well-known auto reviewer's comments should be added to the article.

This is a C-class article and is part of the Automobiles, sports car racing, and brands WikiProjects. This topic page is pretty consistent with the way that we have talked about articles in class, although I think the talk page was more involved and had more problems in it than I would have guessed. The article is in good status, and could use additions but is overall pretty good. I think that its coverage of the different editions and racing results was good, but there could be more about the reception of the car.