Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mercedes-Benz Vision EQXX/archive1

Mercedes-Benz Vision EQXX

 * Nominator(s): X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 01:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is about a proof of concept electric car introduced in 2022 by German automaker Mercedes-Benz. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 01:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Sorry - I hate dropping opposes on nominations, but this isn’t up to scratch. There are unsupported claims in there, breaches of the MOS in regards to LQ, dates, etc and some clumsy prose. Can I suggest you withdraw, work on it for a couple of weeks and then return? - SchroCat (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you point out where, exactly? Critique is fine but vagueness is not. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 02:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Where? All over, is the simple answer.
 * Lead
 * Cites are not needed in the lead unless for quotes – and the ones that are supporting the statement " average energy consumption of 8.7 kWh (31 MJ) per 100 km (approximately 11.5 km per kWh)" should be in the body with the rest of the sentence – the lead should summarise the article, not have different information.
 * "Mercedes-Benz'": Benz' is not the possessive: Benz's is the correct form
 * "However": always a bit of a flag and is certainly misused here
 * '"... entire company is headed."' Should be ' entire company is headed".' Per LQ


 * Overview
 * One paragraph supported by one citation. Unfortunately the citation is not at the end, so the last sentence is unsupported – and I'm struggling to understand why you took out the citation needed tag
 * Elsewhere in the bit that is supposedly supported, we are told "Initial design ... began in January 2021": for the life of me I can't see that in the source, so that's a sourcing fail. Ditto the claim that the car has "1,000 km (621 mi) of range" – the source says it "will travel more than 620 miles on a single charge", which is different.


 * Elsewhere
 * Both "hood" and "fender" are US English and the article is written in (and tagged) as British English. "Bonnet" and "wing" are the correct terms – and what a "distinguished fender" is, is anyone's guess.

This isn't a full in-depth review, just a very quick glance at a couple of points that caught my eye. As I said above, I would recommend withdrawing and returning in a couple of weeks once the prose and sourcing are FA compliant. Looking at the talk page I don't see any record the article has been through a peer review. I suggest that would be your best option, adding it to the FAC peer review sidebar to raise its profile. - SchroCat (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * , I did bring it to peer review. It was unattended for for two weeks. Thanks for the pointers though, I'll work on it. Cheers. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 08:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So why isn't it recorded on the article talk page? There should be a record of it.
 * As I've said above, this is not a full review, just a spot check on a couple of points and there is enough for me to retain my oppose here, even after these have been completed. - SchroCat (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I closed the discussion and I removed it from the talk page as I thought it was not needed anymore. Anyhow, I did not expect you to withdraw your oppose anyway. It just gives me a starting point from which I can improve the article. The discussion is located at Peer review/Mercedes-Benz Vision EQXX/archive1. I have also recorded it on the talk page. Apologies for the mishaps, I am relatively new to the process. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 08:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * - Per this request, the nom wishes to withdraw. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)