Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Plug-in hybrid/archive1


 * withdrawn temporarily pending improvements to references and units . BenB4 12:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Plug-in hybrid
A couple months ago I started an ad-hoc improvement drive on this article just as some experts decided on their own to improve it. About a month ago, it underwent peer review, and all the suggestions seem to have been followed. The result as, over the ensuing weeks, stabilized into what I believe is a very well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral article. BenB4 06:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Please size all thumbnail images IAW WP:MoS. — BQZip01 —  talk 08:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ done 75.35.115.68 10:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Okay, now for a full review (sorry it was late last night and I didn't get a chance to really look at the whole article and just did a quick check). The article appears written pretty well, but has some problems.
 * First of all it could use some more pictures (recommended, not required) to better illustrate the subject. I recommend at least one picture for every 2000 words (though the image guide recommends 1/500). In addition, you may want to vary the positions a little for style (some on the left, some on the right)
 * Problems with 1a, 1c, and 2a (this is common for FA candidates, so don't too disheartened).
 * The prose is not very engaging and is very dry/technical. Please try and spruce it up a little.
 * Many sections that are completely unreferenced; everything in the article must be verifiable.
 * The lead does not follow WP guidelines (WP:LEAD).
 * Technical problems: make sure are dates are wikilinked. Measurements should also be wikilinked in their first use and conversion templates would help to show km/mile conversions.
 * Be specific, not vague. Example "Many existing PHEVs are conversions of 2004+ Toyota Prius hybrid cars, which extend their electric-only range and add plug-in charging." How many is "many?" Do you have a source for that? See weasel words.
 * In short, get some more references (or reference sections better), make the guidelines are met (the criteria above, WP:MoS, & WP:GTL), and go over everything with a fine-tooth comb. I suggest getting this article upgraded to Good Article status first and getting a peer review. This should help many of these problems.  — BQZip01 —  talk 16:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Currently the article has one picture per 536 words, by my count. I thought we are following WP:LEAD -- how is it not? I will add references to the two unreferenced sections and work on the prose. BenB4 21:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WOW! My bad! The comments on the picture were supposed to be on another article. This is what happens when you have more than one window open at a time. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Every section is referenced now. Thank you very much for pointing that out. I will continue to work on the prose. BenB4 21:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Completely disagree. The whole section on series and parallel hybrids is missing a reference as are several others. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've clarified the "many" problem that you pointed out, and looked again at WP:LEAD -- the only way we violate it is to introduce some clarifying terminology (PHEV-xx for all-electric miles) which I think is essential to understanding that jargon. The rest of the lead is definition, terms, and a summary of the most important points in the article. BenB4 21:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I could have been more specific: An article of this length shouldn't have more than 3 paragraphs. In addition, the lead should introduce topics that will be discussed in the body of the article. Nowhere other than the intro do you discuss the sources of the electrical power (wind, nuclear, etc.). I think there are others too, just make sure you cover them later in the article. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ shortened intro per comments. BenB4 06:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You also need to ensure that nothing in the intro isn't expanded upon later in the article. Definitions and the PHEV terminology do not belong there. — BQZip01 —  talk 18:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to seriously question your judgment if you are indeed claiming that a definition doesn't belong in the intro. Can you find a featured article which does not define the subject of the article in the intro?  And the terminology establishes context for the jargon that is used throughout the article, just as WP:LEAD says it should; it also says that it should be treated with common sense. BenB4 00:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't questioned your judgment; I fail to see why you should question mine. Don't take technical criticism so personal. WP:LEAD states "...specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar." I do not believe that your intro falls into this category. Where does it state that "terminology establishes context for the jargon that is used throughout the article" Why not simply state general terminology such as "PHEVs are categorized by the distance that can be traveled on electrical power alone," and go into the descriptions of the specific terminology later? This makes it capable of fulfilling WP:LEAD. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought that if multiple sections used the same jargon that it was best defined in the intro (since the TOC is usually consulted after the intro depending on what the reader wants to learn). If I were to follow your advice, a TOC user jumping to the second or later section that used it might miss the meaning.  Are you sure that you think the article would be better if that could happen? BenB4 04:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Mild support The only dates which are supposed to be wikilinked are those including year month and day; and the only reason to do so is the minor reader service of letting the reader format them as he likes. I see only two such dates in text, and not linking them is preferable to linking every date, contrary to MoS. I would look at WP:WIAGA, by all means; but I would avoid the GA like the plague; it has never been more than "a couple of editors like this" and it is now much worse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotta disagree here, there are a LOT of dates that aren't wikilinked (far more than 2) - double check the references section and you'll see exactly what I am talking about. If you don't want to get the article FA status, be sure to follow this advice and openly violate WP:MoS. One of the requirements of a Featured Article is that it follows the MoS. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? We have to wikify all the dates in the references?  What purpose could that serve? BenB4 06:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It has three purposes:
 * Allow personal settings to determine the format of the date and lets users read dates that is most common to them (increases readability).
 * Standardize the date structure throughout the document
 * It meets the criteria of a featured article (see WP:DATE)
 * You don't have to do it if you don't want it to be a featured article. It's really easy and shouldn't take more than 30 minutes tops: simply put brackets around each date. Look at the code and you will see that all of these dates are different in the code, but not on your display.
 * 2007-06-01 displays as 2007-06-01
 * June 1, 2007 displays as June 1, 2007
 * 1 June 2007 displays as 1 June 2007
 * — BQZip01 — talk 18:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ all of the wikilinkable dates, even in the references, are wikilinked. BenB4 00:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Still missing at least 2 in the references. In addition, "September 25 to 27, 2006" should be rephrased -> From September 25, 2006 to September 27, 2006
 * In addition, please check your numerical units for currency (problematic throughout) IAW WP:$. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ I made those changes and the currency symbol changes you suggested, too. BenB4 23:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please slow down and make sure all of the changes have been made before you claim it is done; do a search in your browser for "$" and fix all of them. There are plenty of places that it is not used properly (for starters the first instance shouldn't have a space and should be wikilinked to the currency). In addition, your measurements should have their first instance wikilinked and could be abbreviated too. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Copyedit needed, along with some more sources.
 * Intro:
 * Inconsistent units - It says PHEV (miles) and then PHEV(kilometers)km, with the units spelled out and the abbreviation.
 * History:
 * Stubby, short sentences here don't make the prose flow well; needs copyediting - "The gasoline powered engine was connected to the trans-axle via a worm gear.[11] The car could be plugged into a standard 110 Volt AC outlet for recharging."
 * "The vehicle, which is owned by CalCars technical lead Ron Gremban" - needs cite
 * "On November 29, 2006 GM announced plans to introduce a production plug-in hybrid version of Saturn's Greenline Vue SUV in 2009[10] with an all-electric range of 10 miles.[16]" - I would probably stick both references at the end of the sentence.
 * "On January 7, 2007, General Motors' Chevrolet Volt was unveiled" - There is an external link on the word "unveiled". Word shouldn't be linked, but possibly this could be a reference.
 * Last paragraph - "On May 22, five research projects". I can tell you mean May 22, 2007, but should include the year to be clear to readers in the future.
 * Technology:
 * Needs to be wikified more. For example "Orion bus", "Honda Insight", "Civic", Accord", ...
 * Where it mentions "Orion bus (earlier post)"... I may be missing something, but I don't see the Orion bus mentioned elsewhere in the article. It's unclear what "earlier post" I should be looking for.
 * "series hybrids" - doesn't need to be bold the second time
 * Modes of operation - needs more cites
 * Batteries:
 * "Because the number of full cycles influences battery lifetime, battery life may be less than in HEVs which use a smaller window of ." - smaller window of what?  Needs copyediting.
 * Conversions of production hybrids:
 * Various words have external links. These should be removed, or if appropriate, made into references or put in the external links section.
 * Vehicle-to-grid electricity features:
 * "See also: Net metering" - this is not formatted correctly. I recommend putting this in the "See also" section at the end of the article.
 * See also section:
 * This section should be placed before the references. See WP:LAYOUT
 * Potential disadvantages:
 * Think this needs some more cites.
 * Commercialization:
 * George W. Bush should be wikified.
 * Overall this is a good article, but with some problems to be fixed. --Aude (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the "PHEV-(miles)/PHEV(kilometers)km" those are actually the ways that PHEVs are described in English and metric units.
 * Well, I tried changing it to "A plug-in hybrid's all-electric range is designated by PHEV-miles or PHEVkilometerskm representing the distance the vehicle can travel on electric power alone. For example, a PHEV-20 can travel twenty miles without using its internal combustion engine, or about 32 kilometers, so it may also be designated as PHEV32km." but as you can see that looks terrible, so I replaced the parentheses instead of italics.  It looks much better with parens and italics both. BenB4 05:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume then that miles is considered the default measurement and "km" is added to denote that it is the kilometer measurement instead? If so, please make that clear in the article. — BQZip01 —  talk 18:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no "default" -- in U.S., people use PHEV-20, and in metric countries they use PHEV32km for the same car. Why is that not clear? BenB4 00:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, for one, I simply asked a question, which you answered in the negative. You then clarified it: The basic terminology is the same, but with a dash when being used with miles and "km" tacked onto the end to denote kilometers, but the terms are interchangeable. This might have been clear to you, but you need to consider your audience and understand that it may not be as clear to your readers. It was simply a question. Don't be so defensive. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, when I said "Why is that not clear?" I did not mean to be rude. I understand that particular question is often used in a rude manner, but I meant it only as the question asks.  I was asking about how you would improve it if you were to make it clearer, or more succinctly, what the difference would be, on the assumption that the difference would be at least suggestive of the reason it wasn't clear.  Why are we cursed with a language that has terms such as questions that give offense. BenB4 04:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. My bad then. I would suggest including it with the basic history of the vehicles or maybe in a simple chart. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ added a "Terminology" section before history as some other FAs have (e.g. global warming) BenB4 23:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The sentences you call short and stubby don't seem to be short or unclear to me. Can you recommend or describe the kind of copyediting you want?  I'm working on as many of the other issues as I can. BenB4 05:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ addressed all those issues except for the short/stubby sentences which I don't understand. BenB4 06:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just for clarification, do you not understand "stubby" or do you not understand which sentences we are talking about? — BQZip01 —  talk 00:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not understand "stubby" and I think the sentences are those about the worm gear and trans-axle. Should those terms be clarified?  Frankly, I'm not sure I know what they mean without looking them up.  On the other hand, sentence length is a function of the sentences' grade-level, and if the meaning isn't clear, I'd think that the sentence length should be shorter instead of longer. BenB4 04:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed the sentence about the transverse-mounted axel and the worm drive. BenB4 05:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * To me, the paragraph sounds choppy, and the sentences don't flow together as well as they could. In glancing at the article again, I notice other issues with the prose.  I think it would help best to get someone else to do copyediting, with fresh eyes to notice things you might overlook from having worked on the article so much.   Here are a few more examples:
 * In the history section, there is a one-sentence paragraph that refers to General Motors. - "On November 29, 2006 GM announced plans to introduce a production plug-in hybrid version of Saturn's Greenline Vue SUV in 2009 with an all-electric range of 10 miles." The next paragraph is also about General Motors.  Perhaps this sentence can be merged together with the next paragraph.
 * The paragraph about the Volt could use copyediting. "On January 7, 2007, General Motors' Chevrolet Volt was unveiled at Detroit's North American International Auto Show.[17] The Volt is part of GM's E-Flex architecture, which is expected to initially feature a plug-in capable, battery-dominant series hybrid architecture. Future E-Flex plug-in hybrid vehicles may use gasoline, diesel, or hydrogen fuel cell power to supplement the vehicle's battery."  The specific date and place of the launch may not matter to readers in the future.  And the way it's written about E-Flex, it seems the reader should already know about it.  I would probably just say "In January 2007, General Motors unveiled the Chevrolet Volt, which is expected to initially feature a plug-in capable, battery-dominant series E-Flex hybrid architecture." or something like that that makes it more concise.
 * Also, take a look at User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a, specifically the sections on redundancy and improving flow. --Aude (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ I have incorporated all of the above suggestions that I understand. BenB4 05:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Except for getting more references in the powertrains section, which I am unqualified to do. My personal belief is that the reference included is sufficient to verify most of the section.  I have asked for additional references there on the talk page.