Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/MINI (BMW)

MINI (BMW)
This article has been accepted as a Good Article and spent two weeks in Peer Review without significant issues. Since it's companion article (Mini) is going to be on the front page on Monday this seems like an appropriate time to get this article through the same process. Many thanks in advance for your valuable comments - having seen how much you guys helped with Mini, I'm excited to see what you have to say about this one!

SteveBaker 15:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment- Is there a way to reduce the length of the timelines so readers don't have to scroll sideways? --Osbus 01:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah - good point. I'll see what I can do - those timelines are templates so they are used in other articles - and I don't want to mess up their needs - but I'm sure I could lose some width somehow. The other problem is the perennial one that we don't know how narrow is narrow.  On my 1600x1200 display, I never need to scroll them.  On my ancient laptop, I have an 800x600 display and *EVERYTHING* needs to be side-scrolled.  Where between those two extremes are we looking? SteveBaker 03:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I usually don't have to sidescroll anything, but for the timelines I had to scroll a little less than half the screen. It's probably just my screwed up browser, though, causing problems again.But if you could reduce the size, that would be great --Osbus 15:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I found the problem with one of the templates: When you have 11 columns - each labelled with 'width=15%' you're pretty much guaranteed that your template will take up 165% of the screen width! SteveBaker 20:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Object: 2a, writing not good enough. Let me know which sentences you want me to critique. Tony 15:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh? How am I supposed to respond to that?!  You need to tell me which sentences you don't like.  If it's the entire article - then you need to tell me what about it you don't like - or at least give me enough examples to extrapolate from.  "Not good enough" doesn't tell me anything! SteveBaker 19:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That was my way of implying that any sentence you choose will require editing (although, I admit, a few sentences might pass). Tony 04:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Object, there are entire sections that have no citations ("Criticism" and onwards). I also feel that there is much more that can be said, though I could support it at around this length. — Cuivi é  nen , Friday, 14 April 2006 @ 21:04 (UTC)
 * Object Article does not represent Wikipedia's best work yet. My main concern are prose and references. Regarding the prose there are too many one-sentence paragraphs and the prose does not flow smoothly throughout. Regarding the references complete sections, such as Criticism, The Next Generation and Prototype and concept cars, are lacking citations. Joelito 01:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, this feedback is truly the least helpful imaginable - vague "its not good" comments are of no help whatever. Well, let me concentrate on what I can understand:
 * One sentence paragraphs: Well, there are six one-sentence paragraphs in the 29 paragraph article. Three of those are in 'Success story' and each of those is a separate, complete statement that is independent of the others - I think this is what a paragraph is supposed to be. Short of padding the article with content-free words, it's hard to see what to do here.  If I simply run them together then we end up with a paragraph that talks about the reason the car is popular, the backlog of orders and a mention of an important starring role in a movie.  Those things don't belong together...so they are separate.  It's not right to simply say "One sentence paragraphs are wrong" without looking at WHY they are single sentences.  When all that needs to be said on one topic is one sentence - there is no better thing than one sentence.
 * I could tolerate one-sentence paragraphs if there is absolutely no way of joining them to create better flow in the article. Joelito 02:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Poor prose: OK - I can take that criticism - but I simply don't know what to do here. The prose seems OK to me - so unless someone else rewrites whatever seems bad, this article can't ever improve.
 * This is exactly my point, the prose is OK but it needs to be superb to be a FA. Weasel words plague the article. Joelito 02:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * OK! I can hunt for weasel-words and kill them. That is useful critique. Thank-you! SteveBaker 03:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * References: There are precisely three English language books in print about the MINI. I read and referenced all three of them.  Every fact in the article can be found in one of those three books - and most facts are in all three.  Would you like me to litter the article with random [1], [2] and [3] tokens?  How would this help the reader?  There seems to be no way to say "this entire article is backed up by these three sources" - littering the damned thing with pointless references just makes it look ugly. SteveBaker 01:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Footnotes are needed for sentences like "Dr. Alex Moulton, designer of the original classic Mini's suspension is reported to have said of the new MINI "It’s enormous – the original Mini...". Where or when was this said? Also this sentence "Some MINI convertible owners criticise the poor rear visibility in the convertible". Some MINI owners is a clear definition of weasel words and these weasel words are used throughout the entire article. I keep reading and I find unreferenced facts like "An all-electric MINI is in use at the British Embassy in Mexico that uses around 200 kg of Lithium Ion batteries". Reference? Joelito 02:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But all this will get us is a bunch more pointers to the same three books. To take a concrete example - I just checked and the all-electric MINI is mentioned in all three books. SteveBaker 03:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion, and possibly an opinion shared by ithers, that heavily referencing 3 books is better than leaving important facts withouth a reference. Joelito 04:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)