Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sunbeam Tiger/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Sunbeam Tiger[edit]
Sunbeam Tiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Dennis Brown (talk), Eric Corbett (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I bring this article here with some trepidation as I've never really done significant work on a car article before, but I had fantastic help from Dennis Brown, a fellow petrol head who did much of the research heavy lifting. This Ford V8-powered muscle-car version of the rather pretty Sunbeam Alpine is almost an object lesson in what went wrong with the British motor industry in the 1960s, and its subsequent domination by the Big Three American triumverate of Ford, Chrysler and General Motors. So please don't be put off from taking a look because you think you won't be interested in an article about a car. Eric Corbett 00:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: A few initial observations – I've not yet made a detailed reading:-
- The Production information in the infobox could be clearer, e.g. "7083 built between 1964–67"
- The white space after the Background section isn't really necessary and is a bit distracting – the image barely leaks into the next section
- Short quotations look better when absorbed into the text rather than in quote templates (see Initial prototypes and Demise sections)
Brianboulton (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review
- Page refs for citations 1, 2 and 4?
- Publisher details missing for cit. 3
- Cit. 13: be consistent on the provision of access dates (compare with 44 and 49)
- Cit. 22: I think the publisher is "Fox Sports" rather than "Speed Channel"
- Cit. 50: I don't think "Routledge Revivals" is part of the book's title. It looks to be a series title, so maybe rearrange the details accordingly.
- Publisher information missing for cit. 66
- Cit. 67: The Carguide site seems to be merely the host for an article published in News Limited Community Newspapers, which might be more accurately considered the source of the information.
I have not spotchecked. Subject to that and to the above small fixes, sources look fine. Brianboulton (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments
- Should the images have an "alt =" parameter to comply with accessibility recommendations?
- Alt text is not part of the FA criteria. Eric Corbett 12:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ... but nevertheless I've added alt ext to all but the lead image, as it seems only polite to do so. The {{infobox automobile}} template needs to have a parameter added for alt text so far as I can tell, which I may do later if nobody else does first. Unless someone knows of an easier way to insert the alt text of course. Eric Corbett 14:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Details I missed: distinguishing external features not mentioned (or I missed them): distinctive wheel covers, shield with Ford 260, trim flashes, and word Tiger; compression ratio, carburetor; tyres mentioned as inadequate, but not described.
- I think all this is covered now, apart from distinctive wheel covers, which I haven't seen anyone mention. Eric Corbett 12:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've searched over a dozen sources that discuss the differences in great detail and none indicate different wheel covers between the I and II. Photographic evidence, while anecdotal, also backs this observation. I can't speak to local dealer wheel options which likely varied widely by location, but Rootes didn't seem to offer any OEM wheel options. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes the reader has to expend extra effort to work out the meaning from the context:
- ". . . the production line, which had to be fitted with a [manual gearbox ] . . .". The reader has to resolve the syntactic ambiguity by weighing up the likelihood of a production line having this particular type of gearbox.
- "Neither did it have . . . " The antecedent of "it" is unambiguous but requires unneccessary effort by the reader (there is an intervening "it" with a different antecedent; the negative "neither" misleadingly suggests the same subject as the subject of "lacks".
- "Rootes" can refer to several different people and one company. In British English, at least, I would prefer the company to be used with a plural verb to make it immediately unambiguous ("Rootes was somewhat uneasy about the closeness of his relationship with Ford").
- A plural verb wouldn't really help, as there are two Rootes involved in the story, Lord Rootes and Brian Rootes, and I don't think there's any confusion anyway: "Rootes" always refers to the company and both Brian and Lord Rootes are clearly distinguished as such. Eric Corbett 22:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Series II Tiger was only officially available in the US, where it was called the "Tiger II".[ " might be easier to understand with a different word order (e.g. "Officially . . .")
- "The factory only ever designated two". Since "designate" usually has two objects, the reader may be left waiting for the second shoe to drop. Perhaps a nominal construction would be better.
- I don't follow your point about "designate" usually having two objects. It's very common to say, for instance, that historic house XYZ was designated a Grade I listed building on such-and-such a date. Eric Corbett 22:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry! I was unclear. What I meant was that "designate" is usually followed by a further predicative complement in addition to the direct object (or the subject when used with the passive). So you say "[They] designated the historic house (1) a Grade 1 listed building (2). So I read the sentence as analogous to "They only designated two historic houses," equivalent to the passive "Only two historic houses were designated." This use of "designate" without the additional complement may, of course, be jargon.--Boson (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't follow your point about "designate" usually having two objects. It's very common to say, for instance, that historic house XYZ was designated a Grade I listed building on such-and-such a date. Eric Corbett 22:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The suspension was independent at the front using coil springs and at the rear had a live axle and semi-elliptic springs." might be easier to read with some more punctuation.
- Bodies were supplied by Pressed Steel but engines were "received from" Ford. As a reader I puzzle over whether this is just "elegant variation" or if there is some subtle difference between A receiving something from B and A being supplied with something by B.
- I am not a great fan of unthinking placement of commas after words like "nevertheless", but I think one might be appropriate in this sentence: "Nevertheless the Tiger's front-to-back weight ratio is substantially similar to the Alpine's, at 51.7/48.3 front/rear. " "Nevertheless" is contrastive, but it is not very clear what part of the previous sentence it is meant to contrast with.
- "Initial negotiations seemed to go well, but ultimately broke down." might be better with the adverb "initially". Was it the negitiations or the initial negotiations that broke down?
- "Having measured" or "after measuring" might be "tighter" than "after having measured . . .".
- Replace "and therefore" with "so"? I think that would better match the style of the rest of the article.
- a bigger clutch " better with an indefinite article?
- The article is a bit heavy on inversion as a stylistic device:
- "Neither did it have the resources to develop one . . ."
- "So impressed was he that . . ."
- "not only did Lord Rootes agree" ("not only . . . but that" seems a bit lopsided)
--Boson (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - Background image caption should probably end in period, but licensing all looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, I'm not certain. My feeling has always been that if you wouldn't write a caption as a full sentence in the article body then it ought not to end in a fullstop. But it's arguably a sentence in this case nevertheless, so ... I'm still not sure. Eric Corbett 16:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – After a few fixes (mainly to the references) that I've made to the article, I think it's good to go now. We don't see a lot of car articles come through here, and I don't remember seeing one that passed. This is good enough to serve as a model for future efforts. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Having at long last finished my reading, I'm happy enough with the article, though I must admit I don't understand a lot of the language. I have a few minor issues/questions:
- Whose is the quote: "a 'precision' instrument of questionable antecedents"?
- "Pank" or "Panks"? ("Initial prototypes", para 3)
- "already primered and painted bulkhead" – I don't think "primer" exists as a verb, therefore "primed", surely?
- I'm wanting to say that was the original word in the source. It seemed a bit odd, but since the source used it, I figured I would. I went ahead and changed the grammar per your suggestion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 02:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a bit bothered by "Jensen was...". Since the firm was actually called Jensen Motors, it would be more usual to refer to it as "Jensens", thus "Jensens were..." Not a deal-breaker, though.
- I'm inclined to think the singular is appropriate since we are referring to the company as a singular entity, but will leave that to Eric whose grammar skills exceed mine. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 02:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I too think that "Jensen" is correct. After all, Ford's full name is Ford Motor Company, but we refer to them as Ford, not Fords. Eric Corbett 02:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Positioning of the "however" in the second line of the second "Demise" paragraph: it reads better at start of sentence, otherwise the relation to the previous sentence is obscured.
- I've slightly rewritten the first two sentences of that paragraph to avoid the need for using "however" altogether. Now reads "Manufacturing a car powered by a competitor's engine was unacceptable to the new owner, but Chrysler's own 273 small-block V-8 was too large to fit under the Tiger's bonnet without major modifications." Eric Corbett 01:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting extension to the range of featured article, and perhaps a forerunner of more. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the input and support, it is appreciated. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 02:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The article is concise but comprehensive, neutral, well-written, and well-referenced. The collapsed infobox section is somewhat unusual; a different heading for that section might help readers notice that some technical data are hidden.--Boson (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.