Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Holden VE Commodore/archive1


 * 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

Holden VE Commodore
This article is currently a GA-Class article, and I believe that the article is now good enough to be awarded featured article status. Editing has mainly been undertaken by myself and User:VectorD, but other editors remain noteworthy. OSX 00:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a great article, but it lacks pictures of all the models. If someone added 3-5 more pictures of the inside and the motor then I would nominate it. Still needs some work.SenatorsTalk 22:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ResponseThere is really no need for pictures of every model, as visually some variations only have the most subtle changes to their preceding or subsequent models, i.e. a different wheel design etc. A picture of the engine used in the car can be seen at here, although this image shows the engine of a Cadillac STS, which is basically the same engine with a different cover. Interior shots are difficult to obtain as the car has only been available for a short period of time, and are hard to find. Give it time and these shots will become available. OSX 23:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Object: Image captions need work. Also, as to placement of images: the jarring back and forth left-and-right of the images combined with one section having three images crammed in while other sections have none lead me to objections because of the lack of balance and aesthetics.  Writing (per 1(a)) is not compelling or brilliant.  It reads like a list of specificiations.  Entire awards section (a whopping 4 sentences) sounds like a run-of-the-mill auto commercial with The Holden VE Commodore SS also claimed Motor magazine's 2006 Bang For Your Bucks award for best value performance car.[37] As well as successfully achieving these awards, the VE has also been nominated for the 2007 World Car of the Year awards,[38] and the 2006 Wheels Car of the Year award.  I'd rather have a list than a car commercial.  Way too many citations breaking right in the middle of sentences, against the guidelines in WP:CITE. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 02:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Have fun fixing those mistakes above, I will try to help.!?!?!!SenatorsTalk 02:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ The issues listed above have now been resolved, if you feel that further improvements can be made please do so. OSX 08:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they are not. Not by a long shot. Continued OBJECTION because nothing has really been remedied. Your little "tweaking" of the article did not satisfy the cause for my objections. The writing is still quite incredibly dull throughout the entire piece, several asserted facts and statements STILL uncited, several sections still stubbish (especially "Specification Levels")...and did I already say the writing was dull? Two-sentences together or just one sentence alone do not a paragraph make.  That's bad form. Read Strunk & White's Elements of Style Also, remove all the size/pixel parameters from thumbnailed images.  Each user's preferences determine that given their browser/resolution settings.  Also, because of user preferences, you don't need to edit dates back and forth from 10 November to November 10 -- you just wasted time doing that. Making the awards section a list is a slight improvement, but not a preferable one. Image captions need to be better written, more descriptive. (e.g. "front-side view of a VE Calais" isn't a good caption). Image placement is still unwieldy and unbalance...and from several combinations of screen size and resolution parameters. It reads like a third-grade reading level interspersed with factoids from the specifications sections of a sales manual. Largely though, my concern is that the writing is far from the brilliant and compelling required by criteria 1(a) and until the article is written to be brilliant and compelling, it ought not to pass FA.&mdash;ExplorerCDT 08:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Response Could you please elaborate on some of the suggestions made above. Firstly it is difficult to get images to go under the "Market", "Issues and criticisms" and "Awards" sections. Do you have any suggestions about images that could be found to be placed under these sections? Secondly. You say that the "Awards" section being made into list is a slight improvement, but not a preferable one. What would you suggest as being the ideal way to present this information? And thirdly, you still seem to dislike the image captions. What would you suggest they say? There is only so much information that you can get out the images to go into the captions. If you think more needs to be included, please go ahead and say so. OSX 10:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: You could disperse any of the images you already have (some of which are stacked 3 in one section) amongst sections currently lacking. There's no need to get new ones.  Also, you have to get past the "well, the image has to match the content of the section" because that's (as far as I know) is not nor has ever been a requirement or a guideline. It's just a matter of aesthetics and balance.  Imagine the aesthetical issue of image placement as a weight on a scale: You can't expect to put three things on one side of the scale and not one on the other side and expect it to come out balanced.  As for captions: something more descriptive and elaborative than "front side view of model".  What's so special about the view? What features are accented by the angle chosen? (objective descriptions, of course).  The possibilities are only limited by your imagination. Please address my concerns with the writing though. That's far more important than the image captions. (If I have time tomorrow, I'll look at what I can do with image captions I don't like and moving images around. Big If though.).  I can live with an "awards" list. Even approve it. But, if I were writing this article, I wouldn't have use most of the heirarchical section structure that the writers of the article have used and I would have incorporated the information very differently. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 10:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Citations in the middle of sentences are fine. WP:CITE should say nothing to the contrary. If it does, it ought to be removed. Hopefully no useful information was lost when this was "corrected" in the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You really don't read WP:CITE and see how it should be applied given the circumstances of the article. Under "How to cite sources" section: Footnotes come after punctuation: some words, phrases or facts must be referenced mid-sentence; footnotes at the end of a sentence or phrase are placed immediately after the punctuation, without a space.. After you view what the author is citing, you'd see that several of this article's citations don't reference exclusively "words, phrases, or facts" in the middle of the sentence, and thus properly belong at the end of the sentence where they need to be moved.  Several citations within the article are improperly cited.  You should have noticed that if you didn't give it a perfunctory once-over. Spending five seconds on an article, without checking each of the sentences being cited with the cited materials themselves (which your dismissal of my critique indicates) makes you uninformed to pass such cursory judgments...and as such you might not be best informed to contribute to FAC. I spend several minutes reviewing each article I review here at FAC.  You might have spent 30 seconds given the depth of your reply. That's counter-productive to the task at hand. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 10:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * First sentence: Why the comma after "fourteenth"? Consider spelling out numbers of more than one digit ("14th"). "Full-size car" with the hyphen, so pipe the link to that wrongly named article.


 * Object—1a and 2a. The inadequate lead has a number of faults in just a few sentences, indicating that the entire text needs serious massaging:
 * How many official presentations were there? Why "first"?
 * Having said it's an Australian car, you don't need the name of the country after "Melbourne".
 * "Holden's first Commodore ever to be built upon an entirely new design"—"Upon" is old-fashioned now. What's wrong with "on"?
 * The lead should be an overview; some of its contents are not sufficiently big-picture to include. It's too short.
 * Title: "Development history"—nah, "History of development", please.
 * What's a "clean sheet Commodore"? The double adjective must be hyphenated.
 * Why is "2010" linked. It's a furphy.
 * "a price tag around AU$35,000"—Insert "of".

No, it's not written to the required "professional" standard. Tony 00:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Question I have fixed up most of the problems mentioned above, except for the complete article rewrite. I have already fixed up some of the wording, but much more needs to be done. Is there anything that else that can be done to improve the article before I start rewriting entire section? Any suggestions would be appreciated. OSX 03:56, 25 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.