Talk:Fiat 130 HP

A fact from Fiat 130 HP appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 April 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the 1907 Fiat 130 HP racer had wooden wheels?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fiat 130 HP.

Wikipedia

Automobiles Low‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

DYK nom Template:Did you know nominations/Fiat 130 HP

Unofficial review[edit]

So, earlier than previously stated, here are my offerings so far. The article shows much promise and I hope you continue to expand it. I must ask, what are your intentions with this article? I think with a little bit of research, you could head to GA.

Here are my thoughts in the meantime:

"Prior to 1906, Fiat had achieved some major sporting success, but had not been considered a true champion..." -- had not been considered by who?

Proposal: What about "...had not fielded a first place championship design..."

This still sounds wrong; is that another Americanism? If so, I apologise. I'll have a think on this one. Cassianto ^Talk 19:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fiat had won an earlier race with a much less powerful car, a 40 hp model, and had placed in other races. What about

Ok, but we need to establish who considered this. Once we know, you will need to say. Cassianto ^Talk 21:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

____________________

The text you moved is my proposed rewording:

"Prior to 1906, Fiat only had limited success on the racing circuit owing to their use of less powerful cars. The manufacturer did not have a high powered design which was able to compete on a level with the French who dominated the circuit at that time."

Does this sound better to you? I apologize if I had made it more confusing by poor formatting. Also, as this is about racing in Europe, and an Italian car, UK english might be preferable. What do you think? ScrapIronIV (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I copy edited slightly, but yeah that's better. Cassianto ^Talk 07:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

__________________

"...higher powered French cars." -- It may help to give some French examples for those who don't know much about cars.

Agreed: I will research

Done

"When new standards were introduced in 1907..." -- standards in what; racing, manufacturing etc?

The original wording was even less clear in the sources; most stated "a new formula." Here, I could use assistance from a racing enthusiast; new rules are often put in place governing performance and specifications. Is there a better universal wording?

We have to be careful with WP:OR. If you don't know, leave it until you do. Cassianto ^Talk 19:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the term "Formula" in racing is a set of regulations put in place to govern the race. It has since become more standardized; hence the name of "Formula 1" racing as part of Formula racing. I think I will be able to reword this, but the term "formula" would have been understood by true race aficionados. I am not one of those. Perhaps an added wikilink link to clarify.

Yes, a link will help here. "Formula" is a widely recognised term. Cassianto ^Talk 21:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

"Fiat chose to develop a new race car". -- Introduction needed

I could use a recommendation here

The introduction would be the car that you are talking about; presumably, this one? Cassianto ^Talk 19:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think my changes may have addressed this

"working with designer Giovanni Enrico" -- Definite article would sound better here. Not essential, and it depends, of course, in what tongue we are writing in. The Americans choose not to, but the English do (unless your a filthy tabloid).
"and technical directors Guido Fornaca and Carlo Cavall" -- same here.

I will offer a smile here, and admit that I am on the western side of the pond.

Fair enough :) Cassianto ^Talk 19:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the wording, please check if it is better

"was innovative for its time, as it had a bore greater than the stroke..." -- lose the comma here.

Gone

"This engine was innovative for its time, as it had a bore greater than the stroke, overhead valves and hemispherical..." -- Watch out for WP:POV here. Who considered it "innovative"?

If the source specifies it as "innovative" then maybe this one is OK as it is. The design elements cited were new or recent developments, although in a new field almost every change is innovation.

Then I would name the source within the text so it sounds less POVVY. Cassianto ^Talk 19:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"This engine was innovative for its time, as it had a bore greater than the stroke, overhead valves and hemispherical." -- Needs a closing citation.

I will add one.

Done

"The car behaved very well during the Targa Florio..." -- no, no, no. Surely a car doesn't "behave"?

On this side of the pond, this is a common phrase. New designs are prone to "misbehavior" and "bad habits" - we really do anthropomorphize machines a LOT - particularly cars and planes. I am open to suggestions, as this phrase is natural to me.

"performed"? Behave is definatly the wrong word here. Cassianto ^Talk 19:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

"which was won by Felice Nazzaro followed by Vincenzo Lancia" [2][3]. -- Move the citations out of the sentence and after the punctuation.

Done - a Bot did it for me

"The same Nazzar..." -- lose "The same".

Done

"...Taunus circuit[4][5]. -- again here.

Done

"The same team of Nazzaro, Wagner and Lancia..." -- lose "the same".

Done

"was deployed to the French Grand Prix" -- if you keep the "team", was is fine. If you switch to the surnames, "were" is required.

Done; kept "The team of..."

"The other two cars Fiat entrusted to Lancia and Louis Wagner finished fifth and sixth respectively." -- closing cite needed.

Will do; I need to find a better reference - I am getting a DNS error on two web cites

Is "3 turns" a technical term within racing?

Yes. On a closed course, three turns is a lap and a half.

Updated I found a separate source which states three laps, and I changed it.

Done

"but because of a fault had to withdraw" -- "."

Done

"The lead passed to Lancia, who, however, also had to retire for engine trouble, leaving the victory to Nazzaro. -- "Lancia briefly took the lead but owing to engine trouble, they also retired. The race was eventually won by Nazzaro.

Done, but changed "they" to "he" for consistency.

Citation also required for the last sentence.

Will do.

Done

Hope this helps me please adopt or disregard at your leisure. Cassianto ^Talk 21:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I have covered all of your suggestions; please let me know what you think. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way of formatting the rawlinks? Cassianto ^Talk 13:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have done so now. I removed dead ones, and replaced an ambiguous one. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have give it another copy edit and have left some hidden questions. See what you think. Cassianto ^Talk 16:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely fine with the majority of the edits, but I don't want to do any reversions, so I have a few questions for you:

1) If I am using the term "innovative" to mean (per M-W) "introducing or using new ideas or methods" and listing examples of the new ideas and methods included, I'm not sure why it is POV. I won't make a change here until we reach consensus.

What I'm looking for here is a reference to someone who considered it to be "innovative". For example: "Joe Bloggs from the motoring magazine Car Weekly called the design "innovative...." At the moment, it reads as if you the author found it to be innovative, which is a strike against WP:POV I'm afraid. Cassianto ^Talk 18:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed term, replaced with more neutral wording. ScrapIronIV (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) The change from 60 hp Fiat 60 HP to 60 hp loses information, IMO. With this change, we lose the name of the vehicle and only list its horsepower. It does not make it any easier that the actual names of the Fiats of the day were references to their horsepower. I was using 60 hp as an adjective, in front of the vehicle name. I was trying to avoid another construction like }(Vehicle name), which delivered xx hp, but perhaps that is unavoidable. What if I word to word it as the 60 horsepower Fiat 60 HP? I will try this, and see how it looks.

Can we not make an educated guess that seeing as we are talking of Fiat, and the indications on previously formatted vehicle names; ie, Fiat 30 HP etc, that we are talking of Fiat without actually mentioning the brand? My only worry is that we say "Fiat" a few too many times. Cassianto ^Talk 18:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand; however, the actual name of the vehicle specified includes the brand as part of the name. I have been unable to locate any sources that refer to the Fiats of the day that to not incorporate the brand name as part of the identification. It does not help that they seem to use just the horsepower - and occasionally the term Corsa (loosely, Racer) - in the naming convention. ScrapIronIV (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3)The Wikilink you added for Lancia is to the car manufacturer, where the reference in the article is to a driver of that name, who is previously wikilinked.

My bad, sorry. Cassianto ^Talk 18:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4) I am unsure how to refer to John Henry, other than as the project manager; I could remove the reference to him completely, as the Designer is more notable than the PM. I will wait for consensus on this.

You could say "the project manager John Henry"? Otherwise the reader is left asking who exactly is John Henry? Cassianto ^Talk 18:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added some history and a ref for John Henry, along with his title. ScrapIronIV (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5) The move of the "fifth and sixth place winners" to the higher location in the article would move them from the Kaiserpreis race to the Targa Florio race, which would be factually incorrect, and would make Lancia finish in second place and in sixth place (little smile here) - I will try to separate the races better.

Yes, that was introduced (albeit accidentally) to ensure we weren't repeating ourselves. The way it read before could have meant "followed" to mean the race next year. Cassianto ^Talk 18:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have given my reasoning, I will make some of these changes, and we will see where we stand. ScrapIronIV (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marvelous suggestions, and I really do appreciate your input. Please let me know what you your thoughts are on the questions I asked in the comments. Thank you! ScrapIronIV (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]