Wikipedia:Peer review/Ford BA Falcon/archive1

Ford BA Falcon
Please write what you think about this article if there is anything that i have missed please tell me. Senators 01:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a lot wrong with this article - too much to spell out in detail.
 * This image Image:55142 3mg.jpg is an unnecessary 'fair use' image. You already have photos of the car - it only ceased production last year so there is ample prospect for obtaining new photos.  Fair use does not apply under these circumstances - so this photo has to go.
 * There is a confusing switch of tenses in the introduction: "the car is manufactured by..." - yet the car ceased production over a year ago. This confusion of tenses pervades the article.  There are still switches of tense throughout the remainder of the article.
 * The quality of spelling, punctuation and grammar needs a lot of work. Elementary mistakes like 'where' instead of 'were'...or: In the BA range there is six models (are six models!).  There are far too many problems to list here - the entire article needs a thorough copy-edit.
 * There are many unlinked terms, eg: The ANCAP gave the car 4 out of 5 stars - what the heck is 'ANCAP'?!? Even fairly obvious terms such as 'LCD' need to be either linked or expanded (eg 'liquid crystal display (LCD)').
 * Also, there many weasel-words: (people speculate that... - which people?
 * Factual/technical problems: therfore the car may use an extra 1.5 liters of fuel in the real environment - 1.5 liters over the life of the car? 1.5 liters per day?  1.5 liters per kilometer?  What?
 * When you use metric measurements, please put the imperial equivelents in brackets afterwards.
 * SPELL CHECK THIS ARTICLE! There is no excuse for desinged, whanted, etc.
 * Some things are clearly nonsense: the driver moves the gear stick to the left and the vehicle will change gears according to the driver's liking and acceleration.  The car is not telepathic - it doesn't know the 'driver's liking'.  Tell us what it actually does.
 * You tell us that they were to hard to get in to because a user's head would always hit the top - ''always'?!? Even little old ladies?  People afflicted with dwarfism that are only 3 feet tall?   No - of course not - this is a ridiculous statement.  The article is full of junk like that.  This is an encyclopedia - you have to be really, really careful about exaggerating.  Keep to the actual facts.
 * The level of detail in the article fluctuates wildly. You tell us microscopic details such as how the colour of the knobs on the radio changed from one version of the car to another - yet you never tell us fundamental things like what size wheels the thing has.  I'm not saying that we need all of that other stuff - but if you are writing a high-ish level article then please leave out the silly little details and if you are attempting an unbelievably detailed description then we need a lot more detail about the rest of the car!
 * As I said, this article needs a heck of a lot of work.
 * SteveBaker 03:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The article has improved immensely over the last few days. I've struck out the things from my list of comments (above) that have now been fixed - but the language use is still very sloppy - there are lots of grammatical and punctuation problems remaining. I wouldn't want to accept this as a WP:GA.  SteveBaker 02:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

From SG
I was requested to review this article for GA status: I don't participate in GA, but can review it anyway. I fixed some things. Didn't have time to read the article. Sandy (Talk) 02:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Heading, Performance and Handling, see WP:MOS, WP:MSH, should be Performance and handling.
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source ( Ford Falcon. en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved on December 11, 2006. )
 * Awards section needs references.
 * News articles need publication dates on footnotes.

Ford BA Falcon
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 470 Nm, use 470 Nm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 470&amp;nbsp;Nm.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 470 Nm.
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 16 additive terms, a bit too much.
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”