Wikipedia:Peer review/Aston Martin DB9/archive1

Aston Martin DB9


Hello all, I have listed this article, Aston Martin DB9, for peer review because I'd like to get it to featured article status. There are only five featured articles based on automobiles, and I would like to increase that substantially given the number of views these articles can get. Thanks in advance, and any comments are appreciated (but try and be as thorough as possible we need this on the main page ASAP) 😊. Best,  750h+ &#124;   Talk  18:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

As you've said you want to take this to FAC, I'll review it with that in mind, which means this is possibly going to be long and picky, but the pain more pain you go through now (so to speak), the easier you'll find FAC. Don't take any of the comments personally – it's not about you, but the language and the article being judged against several strict standards, many of which are competing against one another! This is a long article, so may take some time to get through properly. A couple of points I noticed at the end of the article: the Notes do not all have citations - you'll need to sort that, and the Holmes reference isn't being used: it should either be removed, or checked to see if there is anything that can be used.
 * I've moved the Holmes reference to a further reading section. Thanks for taking the time to review this, SC.


 * Lead
 * "until its demise". A few bits here: firstly it's not clear which "its" you're referring to – car or company. Secondly, neither car nor company is dead, so "demise" is the wrong word to use.
 * ✅ altered wording.


 * "It includes the DB9 coupe and the DB9 Volante convertible" Again, a slightly confusing "It". Why not: "the DB9 is available in coupe and Volante varieties/classes/etc?"
 * ✅ altered wording.


 * "British designer Ian Callum and Danish designer Henrik Fisker": Nationalities of individuals are not really important (both have articles about them which can do the clarification. You can trim this down to "The designers Ian Callum and Henrik Fisker ..." to stop having three "design"s in quick succession
 * ✅ altered wording.


 * "demise" again: discontinuation or withdrawal would be better
 * ✅ altered wording.


 * "It made its public": the last "It" was the DB7, so better to have DB9 here
 * ✅ altered wording.


 * "British designer Marek Reichman": -> "The designer Marek Reichman" (The definite article is a far superior word to use for formal British English
 * ✅ altered wording.

More to come. - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Name
 * All good here
 * Background
 * Caption "The DB7 (pictured) preceded the DB9": rather than having "pictured", which is obvious, it may be better to say "The DB7, which preceded the DB9."


 * "Designed by British designer Ian Callum": he designed a design? (and we don't need the nationality here): "Conceived by the designer Ian Callum" would be better


 * "its demise": as above


 * "Ford invested massively": not too encyclopaedic. If the figures are not known, "heavily" would just about be okay as a replacement for massively


 * "Ford invested massively to produce a new engine and better structural technology to create an improved platform, which helped reintroduce Aston Martin's status as a more desirable automaker": This is a bit of a clunky sentence which could be reworked a little to make it smoother and more manageable
 * I altered this sentence to "Ford invested heavily in producing an improved engine and structural technology to create an improved platform; this helped reintroduce Aston Martin's status as a more desirable automaker." Thoughts?


 * 'namely the "vertical/horizontal"': I think you're best to explain this, either inline if possible, or through a footnote. Don't make people click away from the article for an explanation – they may not come back!


 * Development
 * Caption: "Callum (left) designed the overall design": again, he designed a design? "Callum (left) conceived the overall design" may be better


 * "the forward model plan was to be the one established in the late 1990s": I have no idea what a "forward model plan" is, so you may need to explain. – it may held sort the clunky text at the end of the sentence too ("was the one established in the late 1990s" seems smoother, but it depends on the first part of the sentence)


 * "of British designer Geoff Lawson" -> "of the designer"


 * "he work on two cars, including the DB9 and ... the V8 Vantage": "including" suggests there were more than those listed ... which are only two! It works better if you delete the "including"


 * "asked by American magazine" -> "asked by the magazine"


 * "would be utilised" -> "would be used" (Orwell wrote a superb essay in 1946 that it still as valid today as it was then. In it he outlined his "Remedy of Six Rules" for writers. Number two is "Never use a long word where a short one will do.") The list is on the link – it's well worth having these in mind when you write anything
 * ✅. Thanks for the advice!


 * "significantly conducted testing": the "significance" is not clear
 * ✅. Removed "significantly".

"✅ added "deliberately".
 * "Aston Martin destroyed most of the cars": did the company actively destroy the cars, or were they destroyed during the testing (crashes, etc)
 * "Casino Royale" should be written as Casino Royale - there's no need for the inverted commas


 * "The car publicly debuted": You don't need 'publicly' here


 * "Official series manufacture of" -> "The official series manufacture of"

Done down to the start of Design and technology; more to come. This is nicely written and has a good balance between providing enough information but not getting lost in too much detail. I am not a car person, but it's holding my interest and is an easy read. - SchroCat (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Glad to know 😁! Since I’m not an amazing writer this is probably one of my best works. Will address these issues shortly.  750h+ &#124;   Talk  15:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Continuing...


 * Development
 * "deliberately destroyed most of the cars, but three survived": "three were retained" makes it more of a consious decision by the company (if the sources support that)


 * Design and technology
 * "The DB9's "vertical/horizontal" platform": delink here and move the link up to the reference of the v/h platform in the Background section


 * "The DB9s exterior": possessive apostrophe needed here
 * ✅ I don't know how I didn't see that


 * "Bluetooth were initially were optional": strike the second were


 * Updates
 * What on earth are "refreshed wheels"?
 * The wheels were refreshed. I've rephrased that do something possibly more understandable, "revised wheels". Thoughts


 * "wheels, and a grille": I don't think you use the serial comma here, so this one should be struck. If you do use it, then that's OK, but go through the article and make sure you are consistent in its use – consistency is key at FAC
 * ✅. For me I sometimes use it and sometimes don't so I'll go around the article


 * Also link to grille; not directly (which is a disambig page), but to grille


 * "by British designer Marek" -> "by the designer Marek"


 * "the modifications were subtle": this is POV – if it's in a source, you need to say who said so
 * ✅ I've removed this, it isn't NPOV


 * "About revising the styling of the DB9, Reichman characterized it as follows:" is a bit cumbersome (and has a US spelling too!). Maybe: "Reichman characterised the revised styling of the DB9 as"
 * ✅ (I don't know how I didn't catch that)


 * "attention to detail [...] The": per WP:ELLIPSIS, this should be " attention to detail The


 * "five-bar grille" remove the link from here

Done to the start of Demise (which needs renaming as discontinuation or similar) - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Will address soon. Thanks!!  750h+ &#124;   Talk  10:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Addressed. Thanks for the comments SC and ready to address your subsequent comments!  750h+ &#124;   Talk  10:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Motorsport
 * "AMR additionally developed": Strike the "additionally"


 * "following FIA GT3 regulations": "to follow FIA..." would be more accurate


 * "Called the DBRS9, the car": not sure you need either "called" or ", the car"


 * Reception
 * "British automotive show" ->"The automotive show"


 * "American company Edmunds and magazine Road & Track": "The car reviewers Edmunds and the magazine Road & Track"


 * "car isn't stiff enough": 1. "isn't" –> "is not"; 2. "stiff" fails WP:IDIOM
 * Replaced with "firm".


 * "Direct comparisons with faster cars like the Porsche 911 Turbo S Cabriolet and the Ford GT, the DB9 was ranked poorly": the grammar goes a bit wonky here. Maybe adding "In" at the start of the sentence will fix it


 * "though the Car and Driver reviewer": "though" suggests something of the opposite is about to be produced, but this is more detail of the same criticism
 * I've added a semi-colon. Hope that works


 * "by American magazine Autoweek" -> "by the magazine Autoweek"


 * "with American magazine Forbes": ditto


 * "which American magazine Automobile": ditto


 * "But newer models contain a much improved": 1. You don't need "but"; 2. "much improved" is POV – you need to say who says it's much improved.
 * ✅. Removed "but" and replaced "much improved" with "revised".


 * Notes
 * These also need citations
 * ✅. With citation a, that's already cited in the citations next to it (They're just citing length, which is anyways unimportant). For b, I've added some cites. For c, that already has one.

That's my lot on a first run-through. It's an easy read, except where the techno babble gets in the way – and that is certainly needed for a car article. You've made even that bit relatively easy to read though, so well done on that. I'll drop you an email with some separate advice on FAC. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for these SchroCat!! I thought finding a peer reviewer would take forever but this took less than a week!!! I'll address these shortly.  750h+ &#124;   Talk  12:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this is good! With that I think I'll be taking this to FAC . If you'd like to leave any comments there (If there's any problems you see but didn't point out) then feel free! Thanks for these!!  750h+ &#124;   Talk  13:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)