Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/General Motors companion make program/archive1

General Motors companion make program

 * Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

"Gee our old LaSalle ran great, those were the days."

General Motor's former "five brands" (the current three plus Olds and Pontiac) seems like a lot by today's standards, but back in the late 1920s GM tried to do even more. For a few years it had "companion makes" to fill in four of the classic five. Two of them, Viking and Marquette, you've never heard of because they were quickly killed in the Depression. You might have heard of LaSalle, since it carried on for another decade and gave Harley Earl, who invented the Corvette in the 1950s, his start at GM. You've definitely heard of Pontiac; this companion make program is the reason Americans (used to) have it instead of Oakland. We don't have a whole lot of car FAs on Wikipedia, and this is a fairly obscure niche of automotive history, but I've tried to do it justice here.

Thank you for your consideration of this FAC. If it passes, it'll be my first non-Four Award FA and my third overall. As always with my FACs, minor cleanups and tweaks (lint, ref number swaps, etc.) are encouraged to be done yourself rather than explicitly resolved here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Images appear to be freely licensed (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC) Accessibility - add row headers (!) and row scopes (scope="row") to the table per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be supported by the text. For example, the lead claims that "companion makes were also used to increase the sales of their respective divisions by selling cars that cost less to produce"; the text states that they would increase sales AND cost less, which is a slightly different claim
 * I feel like the difference is minor, but if you insist I can reword it.
 * Work titles like Automobile Magazine should not be in publisher, and publishers like National Museum of American History shouldn't be in work-title parameters
 * Those two specifically have been fixed, let me know if anything else of that nature needs addressing.
 * How are you ordering Works cited?
 * By alphabetical order of short cite
 * Is there a reason to use "Encyclopedia" as a short cite rather than authors?
 * Changed to Ludvigsen et al.
 * How are you deciding when to include publication location?
 * I explicitly decline to include it in newspapers where the location is already in the title and well-known (in this article the Ottawa Citizen but not the Grand Island Independent, but in general the Chicago Tribune and The New York Times are other examples) per the spirit of USCITIES, and I omit it when I can't reasonably deduce the location (websites, for one). Thanks for asking!
 * Thanks for the feedback! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, I think. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I added the row headers for you. Heartfox (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanBodyPiloter5
Mostly nitpicks from me. Provided this passes source reviews and the like I would gladly support raising this to featured status. A well written and interesting article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it necessary to clarify that GMC were owned by GM ? Have GMC ever not been owned by GM?
 * I just wanted to set the tone for the era; I've removed it.
 * I'm not really sure how it would be best to handle the confusing American "model year" concept. I think the initial footnote does a lot to help though.
 * Agreed, and thanks. There's a lot about car culture, especially American car culture, that is confusing to the uninitiated, and I tried to strike the balance between not explaining enough and loading unnecessary details onto the page.
 * When the lead mentions "GM's hierarchy" is that referring to the pricing of the cars or their priorities in terms of marketing, R&D budgets, etc.?
 * Pricing, duly clarified.
 * It might help to clarify that the archaic sense of "coach" is being used since this is a motor industry focused article.
 * I added "horse-drawn" to it.
 * Is there a particular reason why the companion make cars would cost less to produce or do sources not go into detail about that?
 * The source does not go into such details, I'm afraid, although Vikings were above Oldsmobiles.
 * There's a large number of jargon terms when discussing the LaSalle body styles that earlier links don't really help explain, particularly regarding the different types of sedans (the sedan article probably needs a substantial overhaul).
 * I tried to link Car body style (itself an orange-tagged mess) to slightly clarify what I'm talking about here, but ultimately I am not responsible for articles other than this one I'm afraid.
 * I understand that the "six-cylinder inline engine" is used the first time for the sake of wikilinking; but I do have to ask whether this is the standard usage in American English? In British English "straight-six engine" would almost always be used.
 * "Straight-six" is also used in America, and in the sources themselves, but I thought "six-cylinder inline engine" is clearer and less jargony for non-car people.
 * Since I can't access the sources I'll take it on good faith that the source is referring specifically to brake horsepower and not to some other variety of horse power. It's worth being careful with engines of this vintage to check that they're not referencing some now obscure units when power comes up.
 * I rechecked Kimes and trimmed the "brake" parts where necessary.
 * Some more context might be needed for the Death Valley to Pikes Peak drive. Was this just a successful marketing claim or was the car particularly praised by independent sources for its ability to climb hills without issues relative to its competition?
 * The claim comes from Kimes, which is the "Standard catalog" of American cars, so I think the latter.
 * A brief explanation of Opel's relationship to GM at the time might be helpful when they come up; particularly given Opel are now owned by Peugeot.
 * I just said it was GM's European subsidiary.
 * Is the "dean of design" reference regarding Harley Earl describing a position he held within GM?
 * It's an honorary title; duly marked as such.
 * Is "[Pontiac] remained in production until 2010" standard usage in American English? This comes across as saying that the original 1920s Pontiac model was in production until 2010 to a Brit, which obviously is untrue.
 * Slightly changed to clarify.
 * Thank you for your feedback! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mr.choppers

 * Support — Not an expert reviewer, but I know a bit about the topic. Thanks for calling me "prominent," flattery will get you everywhere. The article reads well and there are ample citations from authors with whom I am familiar. I added another Ludvigsen reference as I find it interesting that the Marquette engine went on to power the Opel Blitz, which ended up the workhorse of the German armed forces during WWII.
 * I do have two questions, which may or may not actually be answerable:
 * 1. What were the reasons for the market positionings of the various new brands? All except Viking were priced lower than their "mother brands," was this merely a result of the price gaps to be filled?
 * 2. Why was there no Chevrolet companion make?


 * It might be worth pointing out that in the 1920s, many US brands (including the GM roster, obviously) did not have models within the brands. I.e., Buick or Oldsmobile or Oakland were single lines of cars, using one chassis (often in two different lengths) and one engine. This seems odd today, when we are used to there being a Yaris beneath the Corolla beneath the Avensis beneath the Camry beneath the Crown and so on. This would go some way towards explaining GM's perceived need for different brands rather than just creating a smaller line of Buicks or a more Senior Oldsmobile.
 * I am aware that there may not be any references for these (and my view of the matters may be incorrect), but my support for FA status for this article is in no way contingent on your answering these particular ramblings. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  01:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support! As for your comments:
 * I don't know the market positions, but would probably assume that they were simply due to the gaps to be filled.
 * I also don't know why Chevrolet didn't receive one, but my speculation (which I don't find likely to find a source for) is that GMC already existed as a "companion make" of sorts; either that, or Chevrolet was too cheap to have anything "below" it.
 * I considered adding the "one model per make" info but couldn't find a good source for it unfortunately; I considered a Car and Driver article from 2000 that the original Thunderbird was Ford's first "second car", but that seems like synthesis.
 * Otherwise, I'm glad you liked it! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note
Well past three weeks in and this has only picked up the one general support. Consider this a heads up that it needs to move further towards a consensus to support by the four week point or I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Does the two-week rule still apply if archiving is due to lack of participation rather than any opposes? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback." Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Trying to get more reviewers
You seem like prominent car Wikipedians. If you are interested in this, please look at the article at your earliest convenience. If not, it would be great for you three to ping other Wikipedians who might be interested in reviewing this article. are also FAC regulars I know who could provide feedback, even/especially if they are not car people, although if they are too busy that is more than understandable. I've also put this on the WP:FACURGENT. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I will give a review, but it may be several days. My time is limited at present.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can also take a look, but since I have real life commitments, it may also take me a while, perhaps a week or so. Epicgenius (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt
Comments I've made a few hands-on edits; feel free to revert.
 * "to appeal to different consumers with different incomes" I might strike the first "different" as unneeded.
 * Done.
 * "Durant was expelled from GM in 1910 after over-aggressive expansion; he had over-leveraged the fledgling company in making these acquisitions, and was removed by the board of directors at the behest of the bankers who backed the loans to keep GM in business." The end of this sentence seems a bit muddled.
 * "The action of the bankers was partially influenced by the brief Panic of 1910–1911." I might be more direct, thus: "The bankers acted in part because of the brief Panic of 1910-1911."
 * I merged those two sentences.
 * "daily driver and racecourse tester" What might these be?
 * A "daily driver", in common parlance, is the car you use to just get around on a daily basis. Don also used the Viking to test the terrain of his (ultimately unsuccessful) record attempt; I have reworded the sentence to clarify.
 * "Death Valley, the lowest point in California," Or in the US, actually.
 * I didn't add that information and think it's a bit extraneous; I have removed it unless you have strong feelings to the contrary.
 * " It possessed distinctive styling, with a portly shape that led to its sobriquet of "the pregnant Buick" and a herringbone radiator to distinguish it from other GM makes.[18][38]" Consider adding at least one comma (after Buick and/or radiator)
 * I put one after "radiator" since that logically makes more sense even though my diction "wants" to put it after "Buick".
 * " ill-suited to build" odd phrasing
 * I think that was already fixed by you.
 * That's about it. Interesting. Some awkwardness of phrasing remaining which is surprising this late in a FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll try to look into that, thank you for your comments. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Wehwalt, do you feel able to either oppose or support this nomination? There is, of course, no obligation to do either. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius
Here are my initial comments.

Lead:
 * five car[a] brands, or "makes". - Footnote [a] seems weird to me, I guess you mean passenger cars?
 * I do, and added.
 * The companion makes were LaSalle introduced for the 1927 model year to supplement Cadillac, Marquette introduced in 1929 for 1930[c] to supplement Buick, Pontiac introduced for 1926 to supplement Oakland, and Viking introduced for 1929 to supplement Oldsmobile - I would reword this using semicolons to separate the different elements of the list. For instance, "The companion makes were LaSalle, introduced for the 1927 model year to supplement Cadillac; Marquette, introduced in 1929 for the 1930 model year[c] to supplement Buick; Pontiac, introduced for 1926 to supplement Oakland; and Viking, introduced for 1929 to supplement Oldsmobile."
 * Done
 * "at the expense of the Ford Motor Company" - Nothing wrong with this per se, just that from a financial background this initially struck me as a bit strange, since expense does imply a monetary expenditure in that context.
 * I've shortened it to just "Ford" but am fine with either.
 * That works. Epicgenius (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * By the late 1920s, it was felt that there were excessive gaps in this ladder - leadership felt this?
 * I don't know, (Turns out it was Sloan, but still) I've said just "GM"
 * its popularity exploded after its introduction, and led - The comma is unnecessary, as "led to the discontinuation of Oakland after 1931". If you say "...after its introduction, and it led...", then the comma could be included. However, if the portion after ", and" would not be a separate sentence,
 * Comma removed

Background and concept:
 * Durant founded GM in an effort to replicate - Since you mentioned that Durant founded GM in the previous sentence, the reader already knows this. So you can just say "Durant intended to replicate..."
 * I wanted to make clear that he used GM for that, so "Durant intended for GM to replicate..."
 * Durant was unable to replicate his business model - The phrase "replicate his business model" was repeated from the previous sentence. Not a big deal, though, just something that stick out to me.
 * Works for me. Epicgenius (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Changed to "apply"
 * willy-nilly - This does not seem as professional as an alternative such as "arbitrarily".
 * Changed to "arbitrarily"
 * Durant created Chevrolet shortly thereafter, and
 * By the late 1920s, Sloan, who had replaced du Pont as GM president in 1923 - I would suggest reordering this chronologically, e.g. "Sloan, who had replaced du Pont as GM president in 1923, detected several gaps in GM's ladder by the late 1920s..."
 * Done, with a comma added.

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback so far! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. Here are some more comments I have. Epicgenius (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Launch:
 * The name dated back to 1893 - "back" in this case is unnecessary and "dated back" can be just "dated".
 * Done
 * By the 1929 model year the engine, a flathead, was able to make 60 brake horsepower (bhp) (45 kW) - For me, the fact that the template wraps is a bit weird, but that's not an issue. I think you can put a comma after "By the 1929 model year" or move it to the end of the sentence.
 * I tweaked it slightly
 * "custom cars for Hollywood actors and producers on the side" - Not really an issue, but "on the side" sounds somewhat colloquial.
 * Changed to "also made"
 * spring 1926 - Per MOS:SEASON, "spring" should probably be avoided unless it is from the source. I know it's a North American spring, but still.
 * It is from the source, which says "early spring", and I think it helps chronologically.
 * with either a 128 in (3,300 mm) or 134 in (3,400 mm) wheelbase - I would rephrase this as "with a wheelbase of either 128 in or 134 in", as the current wording does seem a bit unwieldy. These are two versions with slightly different wheelbases.
 * Done
 * It was initially priced at $1,595 but by the end of 1929 had become worth $1,695. - I would put inflation or a similar template. I know you include it below, but it may be useful here too. Also, has it "become worth" $1,695 (which implies a context such as on the secondhand market), or did the sale price change?
 * It " had " become worth that, meaning that it became more expensive during the year. Inflation footnotes added.
 * from Death Valley to Pikes Peak - Do you know how far that is?
 * I don't, and I don't think it's particularly important; the scale of the achievement can be deduced from clicking on the links.
 * I only mention this because for readers who aren't familiar with US geography, a journey from California to Colorado may not mean much. But I agree with you - it wasn't important to me so much as I was just curious if you knew. Epicgenius (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Demise and legacy
 * having failed to resuscitate Buick's sales,[46] it was discontinued at the end of the 1930 model year - While "it" refers to the Marquette, the layout of the sentence makes it appear as though this refers to the Depression. I would thus say "The Marquette similarly suffered from the Depression" or something similar.
 * Tweaked
 * Pontiac would have the opposite destiny. - I'm not so sure how encyclopedic the tone is; I get what the sentiment is, but it sounds unusual to me. Personally, I would also say something like "In contrast, Pontiac was profitable...".
 * Pontiac earned the distinction of being the only GM make - Here you can just say "Pontiac was the only GM make..."
 * I like these two phrases, they seem to have some character for me.
 * I understand. I'm just saying it could be pointed out further down the line, but for me it isn't such a big deal. Epicgenius (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

That is all I have. I should note that I plan to claim points in the WikiCup for this review. Epicgenius (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and good luck on the Cup. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. I will support this nomination now. Epicgenius (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Parsecboy
Nothing major, mostly nitpicks: If you have a moment to spare, I also have a FAC that could use a review from someone less familiar with the topic. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Do we need the first note explaining that GMC is not excluded?
 * I think it couldn't hurt, and is slightly more specific.
 * Sloan's role is not well-defined - he's described as du Pont's assistant, but all of a sudden he's calling the shots for GM. Can we get some clarity on what exactly was going on?
 * I believe Sloan, who had replaced du Pont as GM president in 1923, is enough context
 * Right, but we don't learn that until the next paragraph - there's also some jumping around in time going on - I assume Sloan is making these decisions after he becomes the president, but the paragraph starts in 1920, then it mentions 1929, and then it jumps back to 1922. Part of the solution might be to just move the last sentence about Scripps-Booth and Sheridan somewhere else, as it feels a little out of place where it is now. It strikes me that perhaps the best place to move it would be "Durant repeated his mistakes once back in GM; by 1921, there were seven different divisions producing ten models for GM. Scripps-Booth and Sheridan had been added to the lineup, though both were discontinued by 1922." Parsecboy (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I decided to put it alongside Sloan's other reforms. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me - I think that Sloan's role needs to be clarified - according to his article he was the VP of GM at that time, which answers my initial question. You might say "One of du Pont's main assistants was the Vice President of GM, Alfred P. Sloan," Parsecboy (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, with a false title. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think everything looks good now - great work. Parsecboy (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Scripps-Booth and Sheridan were removed" - passive voice; if the source specifies who made the decision to cut those brands, we should make it clear
 * I don't think the source is too specific on the matter, and I don't think it really matters since the focus is on the brands' removal rather than who actually made the decision.
 * "In early 1926 Lawrence P. Fisher," - need a comma after 1926
 * Done
 * "of 110 in" - it's generally advised against abbreviating units like "inch" as it could be read as the preposition
 * The abbreviation would ideally have a period after it, but that's an issue with the template. In any event I believe the context ("wheelbase" and the conversion to mm) is probably sufficient to distinguish it as the unit of length.
 * As convertible and cabriolet are generally interchangeable, it would be better to standardize terms so as to not confuse readers who aren't as familiar with the topic. And on a related point, unless you can work in explanations of what the differences are between a phaeton and a sport phaeton, or a convertible landau cabriolet and a town cabriolet, it's probably best to cut all of the very specific types that will mean nothing to most readers and just give general types.
 * Done
 * "The encyclopedia of the American automobile" should be in title case
 * Done
 * Thank you for your feedback; I'll try to see if I can provide some review on your FAC. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)