User talk:750h+/sandbox

first (11 January 2024)

Comments

 * "until its discontinuation in 2015." Keep the language simple: 'until it was discontinued in 2015.' I have simplified a couple of other examples, labelled copy edit.
 * Avoid technical terms, or explain them in line. Eg range-extender, a low greenhouse.


 * The lead is too long and too detailed.
 * Citations are not usually used in the lead or the infobox - which are summaries of the main article where these facts are cited.
 * "Robert Lutz envisioned ... However, Jon Lauckner ... Ed Welburn. Who are these people. If you are going to refer to named people, they need properly introducing at first mention. (If this is in the lead, than for a second time in the main article.)
 * "observed in the EV1 program". Which would be?
 * "Pre-production prototypes underwent extensive road-testing". Does this convey any information? Especially for the lead, a bare bones summary. What else are PPPs for?
 * "The Chevrolet Volt and Opel Ampera were concurrently developed". What is the commonality of these two vehicles? Remember all the way through all Wikipedia articles, you are writing for a general audience.
 * Avoid single sentence paragraphs.
 * Comparing features of the Volt to other vehicles which a reader may not have heard of, and the details of which only aficionados will be aware, is not helpful.
 * Cite 26 has a p/pp error.
 * Sources should be in alphabetical order by authors' surname.
 * Publisher location for Brooke?
 * Cite 17: suggest separating out comments from sources as efns.

I don't offer a pre-FAC check service but the notes above will hopefully give you some food for thought. The article is in pretty decent shape. It could really do with a thorough copy edit, but I know that GoCER has a long wait. You may get away with doing your best and then putting it into GAN, where if you get a sympathetic reviewer they will help out on that. Then put it into PR - which does offer a pre-FAC check service and pro-actively shepherd some reviewers towards it. Then take their opinions as to whether it is ready for FAC. While this is happening, review 6 or 8 FACs, including at least one source review and one image review. (Nb, FAC is tough.) Gog the Mild (talk)