GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Suri 100 ( talk · contribs) 11:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I am reviewing this article. I put the article on hold for following reasons:-
Status:- On hold. So i am keeping this article on hold for 7 days.
After these issues are addressed, i will further do review. Suri 100 ( talk) 11:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I am putting the article for a second opinion as i have less expertise in dealing with the technicalities with this article. The article would be reviewed further soon. Suri 100 ( talk) 06:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience in waiting for me to return. My overall impression is that this article does a good job of detailing the various parts of the Audi V8, but I don't believe the "main aspects" of the subject are yet covered as required by the GA criteria. There's almost no discussion of the car's development process, reception, sales, or role in Audi's history. The Audi V8's reception by reviewers, for example, is relevant and readily available in articles like this one. I'm also concerned with the quality of the sourcing throughout the article; most of the information appears to be sourced to self-published Audi fan sites, rather than reliable secondary sources. Other sources include a bulletin board thread and a user-submitted photograph, which clearly don't pass muster. The catalog numbers of various parts, in contrast, seem to me a level of detail unneeded for an encyclopedia article (a problem under criterion 3b). Some minor work should also be done for layout to address the large number of small sections.
Since the nominator doesn't appear to have edited the article yet aside from responding to the comment above, I'm going to close this review for now and suggest that more work be done before renomination. I'd start out by gathering reliable sources on the subject--how do publications like newspapers, magazines, or reference works describe the car? That will give this a stronger start. Thanks for your work on this so far, and good luck in rewriting and renominating it! Please let me know if you have any questions or if there's any other way I can offer assistance. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 23:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
More detailed comments:
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Suri 100 ( talk · contribs) 11:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I am reviewing this article. I put the article on hold for following reasons:-
Status:- On hold. So i am keeping this article on hold for 7 days.
After these issues are addressed, i will further do review. Suri 100 ( talk) 11:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I am putting the article for a second opinion as i have less expertise in dealing with the technicalities with this article. The article would be reviewed further soon. Suri 100 ( talk) 06:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience in waiting for me to return. My overall impression is that this article does a good job of detailing the various parts of the Audi V8, but I don't believe the "main aspects" of the subject are yet covered as required by the GA criteria. There's almost no discussion of the car's development process, reception, sales, or role in Audi's history. The Audi V8's reception by reviewers, for example, is relevant and readily available in articles like this one. I'm also concerned with the quality of the sourcing throughout the article; most of the information appears to be sourced to self-published Audi fan sites, rather than reliable secondary sources. Other sources include a bulletin board thread and a user-submitted photograph, which clearly don't pass muster. The catalog numbers of various parts, in contrast, seem to me a level of detail unneeded for an encyclopedia article (a problem under criterion 3b). Some minor work should also be done for layout to address the large number of small sections.
Since the nominator doesn't appear to have edited the article yet aside from responding to the comment above, I'm going to close this review for now and suggest that more work be done before renomination. I'd start out by gathering reliable sources on the subject--how do publications like newspapers, magazines, or reference works describe the car? That will give this a stronger start. Thanks for your work on this so far, and good luck in rewriting and renominating it! Please let me know if you have any questions or if there's any other way I can offer assistance. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 23:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
More detailed comments: