Wikipedia:Featured article review/Talbot Tagora/archive2


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

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC).

Talbot Tagora

 * Notified: no editors even remotely active here to notify, WP Autos, WP Brands, talk page notice 2013-05-16

Review section
This is a 2006 FA last reviewed in 2009 whose main contributor has not edited since 2006. The article is listy; there is uncited text, including direct quotes, throughout; there are incomplete citations and bare URLs; there are sources of dubious reliability, and it appears the article has not been maintained since its last review. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support accelerated process Only 22 sources, not all reliable. Seems underlinked. FemkeMilene (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support accelerated process per Femke, Hog Farm and sources not incorporated per RetiredDuke (unlikely that anyone will take this on, and if they do, moving to FARC does not preclude further improvements). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The FA nominator of this article responded to the previous time this was nominated for FA review, stating this is the most comprehensive article that could be written and that those were the best-quality sources available. Here's a quote of his response.
 * Comments from HumanxAnthro
 * "I admit to have written a good chunk of this article as it stands, and I am absolutely positive those were and are the "best quality" sources we can get on this obscure subject. Other possible sources are either inaccurate or incomprehensive, so even if they might look nicer by means of being print or more "high-quality" websites, they wouldn't consitute better-quality SOURCES for me. This is a rather special case in that there was minimal coverage of the subject by any form of lasting media, and I understand it is raising considerable doubts, but I hope this meets with understanding. Please do point me towards better sources if I missed some by any chance. As concerns comprehensiveness, this article really says all there was to say about the subject, and then some. I was actually getting anxious there was too much of trivial and unencyclopedic material put in there, so I am quite surprised the article is getting doubts on the other front. OTOH, similar concerns were raised during the original FA candidacy, and proved mostly to stem out of reviewer's cursory look at the article as "too short". Such concerns usually fade away on more thorough reading - there really isn't much, or actually anything, left to say."

Anybody believe them? 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This quote is from PrinceGloria, who seems to be active here and there. I'd notify them about this review. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't say I'm seeing any Bare URL cites, but if "Missing or empty" errors are popping up, that's a sign something needs to be fixed. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I think this appears to be one of those subjects that will just be very difficult to bring to FAC, due to the obscurity of most of the sources. A Google Books search suggests that this car has been written about, but just in primarily offline or otherwise not easily accessible sources. Snippet views for Google books suggest that, , , , etc. With the snippet view, I can see very little about these sources, so it is hard to truly judge. I just think that this is one of those subjects where there is RS coverage available, but it is just all stuff that is very difficult to access. Hog Farm Talk 19:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I've had a bit more luck in finding sources, in some motor magazines:
 * Motor Sport - April 1981; October 1981 (this one is in the article, but w/ no link to source)
 * Classic & Sports Car - January 2020; a paragraph here; pages numbers 17, 18 & 19 in that slideshow; number 5 in that slideshow
 * ''Road & Track - Chrysler Europe's $1 Sales Price Was a Terrible Deal
 * ''Autocar - 40 years on: The notable new cars of 1980
 * I keep finding quotes to old publications of Car, What Car? and Automotive News, for instance in this post or this one, but they are not available online.
 * I don't know much about cars though, so I can't be of much help here. (I also found out that there is/was a band with that name, which I found funny.) RetiredDuke (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If Pitchfork's talking about that band, of course we have to do a wiki on it. XD 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - For what it's worth this article still appears to be of a far better quality than most car articles on Wikipedia; which is to say that it's not a WP:JARGON filled mess. Perhaps the Pitchfork article mentioned prior could be used as a reference somewhere in this article to talk about the car's cultural impact? There certainly seem to be sources available that could help get this article up to the highest standards it could be at. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment this article is nicely written, but its sources are underwhelming and it lacks a description of the car – how would I know whether the car's design was good/average/bad if the tiny description pieces just tell me that is has a MacPherson front suspension and came with three engine options? A featured article on a car (or other vehicle) must include a decent description of how the car works. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: "how a car works" is very subjective; such editorializing is commonly removed from automobile articles. One reviewer loves the handling and another one hates it. Someone finds the seats comfortable and another one thinks they are just okay. Also, is it not possible to have an FA with mainly older, off-line references? Seems very limiting. Anyhow, FA or not is not super important to me.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  16:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support accelerated process unless somebody steps up soon. This one is far from complete per Johannes above, and the sourcing is deficient, as noted above with the list of sources.  This would likely need a top-to-bottom rewrite to get back up to the criteria. Hog Farm Talk 16:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist - Far to go, no engagement. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist (accelerated) - A long ways from this, as it is far from complete or a good sweep of the RS. Hog Farm Talk 03:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist no significant work since article was noticed on its talk page. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.