Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Assessment

How do I request an Assessment?
The section on how to request an assessment tells you to add your article to the list below - but that list has a warning on it that says it's updated by a 'bot' and not to edit it yourself?!?

Please clarify!

(Also - I'd like to offer Mini Moke for assesment).

SteveBaker 14:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The warning is only in regards to the "Assessment log" which is updated by a bot. The requests are added manually. I have added Mini Moke as an example for now (until I take a look at it and assess it). Regards,  Signature brendel  HAPPY HOLIDAYS 17:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh! I see.  When it said 'below' - it meant literally the very next line.  I thought it meant in the section below.  OK.  I think it could be a little clearer. SteveBaker 01:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Is a short comment allowed next to the request? Or is it just going to be the article? For example, I wouldn't mind someone else looking at Maserati MC12 but seeing as I wrote it, I will be a bit biased. I personally think it meets A-Class, however I wouldn't be the best judge so I would put it for assessment.Could I put:

Or should it be just Just curiosity. Also comments should be left to no more than 1 line or it might get cluttered. James086Talk 03:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Maserati MC12 - currently GA-Class, up to A-Class?
 * Maserati MC12


 * Well, there isn't any formal arrangement so I suppose you could put a comment next to it. Now, that you brought it up, I'll take a look at the MC12 article. Regards,  Signature brendel  HAPPY HOLIDAYS 04:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, I'm trying to get it to FA and any help (or even suggestions) is much appreciated. James086Talk 04:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested assessment of Toyota Supra
Just wondering if everyone else agrees that the Toyota Supra article is at least a B-Class article. (what I rated it at..) Thanks  ren0  talk 07:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's a B-Class article. It has 7 in-line citations so far and will probably need more to get to GA status. I'm inclined to that it's one of the better B-Class articles out there. Regards,  Signature brendel  HAPPY HOLIDAYS 08:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, how about now? I'm thinking... It's a start.  ren0  talk 10:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, great job putting in all those footnotes. Why do think it's just a start class article? I think it's quite extensive- once it gets to GA we can assess it as GA class. But if you're convinced that it truly is a start article (I'm guessing you know more about the Toyota Supra than I do ;-)) than go ahead and change the class assessment. It's a still a solid B-class if you want my opinion. Happy editing,  Signature brendel  HAPPY HOLIDAYS 17:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, no I mean it's a start at getting references and footnotes. Heh, I still think it's a B class article. The biggest problem is I am having a hard time finding information on the third generation of the car. I personally own a MK II so a lot of that information came just from experience (and being obsessive). Although most (if not all) of it I can back up with references. I don't know, right now I am just going to do as much as I can to the MKIV section and hope that someone else will help me with the MKIII section.  ren0  talk 22:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Got it-I thought you said it's a start-class article. Yes, I agree it's a start at getting all the refs together and making it a GA. Regards,  Signature brendel  HAPPY HOLIDAYS 05:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Importance
I've been rating a few articles, and the quality (B class etc) is pretty simple, but the importance gets me. I've been rating most cars as mid-class but things like the Mini as High importance (because it is a significant car). Things like the Dodge Viper however are more important than say a Honda Civic (because they are quite famous) but not as notable as a a Mini. So I'm a bit confused as to what they should be rated. Should Mini be a Top priority article and viper a high? Or should most non-notable cars be low importance? Comments? James086Talk 03:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * mmm... unfortunately there arn't really any objective guidelines here. I think significant and famous cars would be high importance (Top being reserved for a couple of article like "automobile"). Most cars would be mid or low importance- depending on how prominent the vehicle is. Here as a couple of example using my personal judgement (Keep in mind, I'm from Europe and live in the US-so my example may reflect that):
 * Automobile - Top
 * Mini, Cadillac Deville, Honda Civic - High
 * Chevrolet Malibu, VW Sharan, Mercury Mystique - Mid
 * Chevrolet Aveo, Cadillac Cimarron, Dodge Sprinter - Low
 * I hope that helps a bit-just my 50 cents worth ;-)  Signature brendel  HAPPY HOLIDAYS 04:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok so not very notable cars get low priority. Thanks. James086Talk 04:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But what signifies as notable? Personally, I don't find the Cadillac Deville all that notable. Perhaps having article relating directly to automobiles, such as the history, and other of the likes as top importance, automobile components and technologies as high, and automobiles themselves as mid? Or the latter two vice versa? &mdash;Mr. Grim Reaper at 21:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My understanding of "importance" is that, in most cases, it means "How many people are going to be looking at this article?" Automobile is top importance because it's the root of everything else in this project. When you get down to articles on the cars themselves, I believe it's based on how much the article is going to be seen. I imagine Ford F-Series is of rather high importance, but Ford Granada (North America), not so much. --Sable232 (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Cars - Featured Articles
The Portal:Cars page is a mess - people keep adding their own articles to it before they've even nominated them for WP:GAC - let alone had them pass. (Lexus LS for example). This isn't the first time I've had to complain about this - a whole pile of Australian cars were added the other day - and some of those wouldn't even make a 'B' on our scale!

I would like to propose a change in policy for Portal:Cars featured articles and make the rule that only articles with an A or better on this assessment scale get onto that page - and have the presence of articles there be controlled by this group as a direct result of awarding the asseassment - rather than the owner of the article doing the updating...which clearly isn't working.

As further justification, I would say that the WP:GAC group don't know a whole lot about cars. Whilst they can check that the article is linguistically correct and has the right numbers of references - nobody there will know whether the car is accurately described and so forth. So for Portal:Cars to use the WP:GA and WP:FA rules as criteria doesn't make as much sense as using our own internal assessment scale.

SteveBaker 22:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right that "the presence of articles there [Portal selected articles] be controlled by this group as a direct result of awarding the asseassment - rather than the owner of the article doing the updating." I agree, besides only GA-Class, A-Class and FA-Class articles should make it as one of the featured articles on the portal. Regards,  Signature brendel  HAPPY HOLIDAYS 01:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments template
I have created a template to make the comments of articles ratings a bit easier. By substing Template:Auto comments it will create the heading to the page and first section. The heading will contain the rating used (as a variable in the template) and the date of assessment (automatic). To use it put this code on the page comments here for example for Mini it might be A very good article but it could use some references in the awards section. ~ I made the template to simplify the comments page and encourage people to make it when rating an article (to help editors improve it). Any suggestions, comments? James086Talk 04:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding Template:WikiProject Automobiles to DCX talk pages
I've started adding Template:WikiProject Automobiles to various DCX vehicle talk pages. If I'm mis-grading or mis-importancing, please holler. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 16:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Chevrolet Caprice - A-class?
I see that Chevrolet Caprice has been awarded an A-class rating. It has not yet gone through WP:GAC - I don't think we should jump that category. A-class belongs to things that have:


 * 1) Passed GA
 * 2) Are considered good enough to stand a chance at getting FA
 * 3) But are not yet FA

If we believe it's good enough to get FA then it should have no problem passing GAC - let's have it actually do that before we bump it up to A-class. I recommend demoting it to a B until it passes GAC - then and only then should we consider whether we think it's so much better than GA that it deserves an A. We don't have enough Automotive GA's and if we go around awarding A's without the GA hurdle having been passed we're not getting the recognition we deserve in the GA honor roll.

(Actually - the article doesn't use proper referencing style - not one single fact in the article can be tied to any of the four references given - and it doesn't show unit conversions to metric - I doubt it's up to GA standard yet)

Thanks! SteveBaker 05:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that I look, I doubt the 'A-class' Ford Mustang article could pass GA nowadays - almost no references in the body of the text - that's inexcusable given the VAST number of books that have been written about the Mustang. It's an ex-FA but demoted FA's aren't necessarily GA's.  SteveBaker 05:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I demoted the Mustang article. A former FA article is exactely that- a former FA- for the GA and A-class title (which still mean be recognized as one of the top 3%) is needs to pass throught the GAC motions first. An article w/o in-line refs isn't a GA and not A-class either.  Signature brendel  05:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ford Torino - Assessment
I have requested the Ford Torino article be reassessed on two occasions, and each time nothing has occurred. The article has been totally rewritten, and is probably one of, if not the most detailed and factual of any of the car articles on Wiki. I am a huge automotive history buff, I am involved in American car restoration, and I ensured that utmost accuracy when I wrote this article. The article was very poorly written before, full of inaccuracies, and was no where near the quality of where it stands today. I am disappointed to see that it appears that no one has taken the time to properly reassess the article.

I understand that my article may not fit the "wiki" guidelines to 100%, however, I still believe it is a better article than a B. As I said, I can assure you that the article body it self is probably one of the most detailed and accurate articles anywhere on the web regarding the history of the Ford Torino. Caprice 96 01:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Log
Perhaps we should just have a link to the assessment log instead of substituting it onto the main page because it makes the page quite long and slows down the loading of the page. For those with slow connections or older computers/laptops, it could cause significant lag. Does anyone have any objections to just linking to it's page? James086 Talk &#124; Email 06:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"NA" Importance rating
We ought to add an "NA" importance rating, to use for categories (and templates, too?). Other WikiProjects use that system and I think it would be good to have here. There's really no point in giving an importance rating to a category, and might as well not clutter up the Unassessed category with these. I'd do it myself but I'd rather leave it to someone who knows what they're doing. --Sable232 (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Wasn't there one at one point? I remember adding one to a template talk page a while back. &mdash;Mr. Grim Reaper at 20:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We already have one. The problem with using it, is it makes the page appear as "unclassified".--Flash176 (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it works, see Category:NA-importance Automobile articles. I can't remember exactly what it was that needed to be changed... I know that some projects' tags will show "This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale" as opposed to ours which says "This article has been rated NA-importance on the importance scale."
 * I could've sworn there was something else but I can't recall what it was. --Sable232 (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it still shows unassessed. Go to [] and click on my sandbox - the first link under F. It's rated as Top class and N/A importance, but still shows up as an unassessed article.--Flash176 (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the "unassessed" is for quality, not importance; I think the problem is because "Top" needs to be capitalized (I think I ran into that before). --Sable232 (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My bad, I don't know how I missed that I put "top" in the class instead of "b" or "c". Anyways, you're right, the NA does appear to be working now, but the last few days I've been classifying all of the unassessed articles, and there have been 2 or 3 that had a class and "NA" importance, yet still they showed up on the unassessed list. Go figure. --Flash176 (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Request Gumpert assesment
Can someone please asses the Gumpert article for me? Thank you! Slapsnot (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

hello my subject / saturn vue AWD.
my first time doing this.but i just don't understand how a company can ingore all the cars that do not fit the law suit guidelines. i have a 2004 saturn vue 4 cyl.AWD it is beautiful.but it just sits in the yard and i cann't drive it because of the transmission. it is one of those(what they called bubber band trans.)havn't had it a year.i am one of those people that will not wreck my credit an not pay for my car.if anyperson for any reason wants to say a word or two.i an at joe.searcy@charter.net any  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.228.73 (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)