Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Holden/archive3


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:51, 7 December 2007.

Holden

 * previous FAC, December 3

I'm nominating this article for featured article status because after successfully passing the article through the good article process, I was recomended that I take it further. Thanks in advance. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The expectation is that concerns in previous featured article candidacies be addressed before an article returns to FAC; this FAC was just archived because of concerns about comprehensiveness (reflected in the article organization) and copyediting. Please take enough time between nominations to address the prior concerns.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose, could do with better prose and sourcing.  Red rocket  boy  00:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Better prose and sourcing! The article has already been copyedited by myself, the League of Copyeditors, as well as User:Kane5187 and User:TKD (both members of LOC). And better sourcing, aren't 83 references enough? OSX (talk • contributions) 06:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, some sentences read very long for me. Some of the references are broken, and (to me) seem unreliable. Fix them up and I'll happily support. Cheers  Red rocket  boy  19:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've fixed up the broken references, and replaced some. Please state which references are unreliable and which sentences are too long. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Question: is it normal to bold names? I always thought italics looked better, but perhaps that's just my personal preference over Wikipedia policies.  Red rocket  boy  00:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about this one, but because they are former names, I would think that you would want them to stand out. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the issues with prose and comprehensiveness from the FA closed this week have not yet been addressed. Just a few examples below (not that this is not from a close view but just things that stand out)
 * Article does not mention that Holden had exclusive rights to GM production in Australia from 1924
 * Done OSX (talk • contributions) 07:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The statement Although it is widely accepted that General Motors was the only automaker to accept the challenge to build "Australia's Own Car", is not backed up by the citation
 * Done OSX (talk • contributions) 07:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing on what and how Holden built from about 1931 to 1948.
 * Done OSX (talk • contributions) 07:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Missing information on the factories they built and closed.
 * Done OSX (talk • contributions) 09:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A graph of something like market share, production, sales $, exports would be great. How many cars per day do they make except for 2005 (684 in 2003). What proportion of sales are imported, assembled in Australia and fully Australian manufactured.
 * Per my comments on the last review there is a wealth of information out there. The editors of this article have written a good one but strategic distance is required as much more than just trimming around the edges is required to make it Wikipedia's best work - Peripitus (Talk) 02:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments:
 * There's an error in citation 9.
 * To cite different pages of the same work multiple times, you should set up separate "Notes" and "References" sections, putting the full citation (e.g. "Robinson, Peter L (2006)...") in the References and putting the abbreviated citation ("Robinson, 22–23") and all the other cites in the "Notes." See The Green (Dartmouth College) as an example. (I'm not sure if this is required per MoS, but the way it's set up now is confusing, because the reader doesn't know where to go to find the full Robinson citation as it's buried with all the others). Dylan 19:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Done OSX (talk • contributions) 07:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Closing note: Please allow at least two weeks before re-nominating at FAC; seeking a peer review or third party assistance may be helpful. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.