Talk:1950s American automobile culture/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 06:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. Here's my review:

• Please link terms in the image captions that are also in the prose per WP:REPEATLINK

 Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would not typically suggest containing one or two short sentence paragraphs, perhaps merge them into a larger one

 Done in part. I think some sections would be less readable if I combine too much, since the paragraphs cover very different aspects. Some of these can be expanded a little later while staying on the topic of that paragraph. I've fixed over half, but would like your opinion on tolerating the others as is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

 Note It would seem you have now addressed the concern, and there are only two paragraphs that are moderately short, but that appears to be fine. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 20:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I believe "World War II" should be linked upon first mention probably, per WP:UNDERLINK

 Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• "the city limits" which city in particular?

 Done Qualified general statement. It didn't apply to any one city, but to all major cities. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Eleven of America's" as a more encyclopedic term, I would use "United States" there

 Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• "than ever" would suggest removing "ever", doesn't seem to fit correctly

 Done Removed both words. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Everything related to the auto industry saw tremendous growth during the decade" are you sure you can state every little thing increased significantly?

 Done Toned down the hyperbole. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sometimes you write "percent", while other times you write "%": in any case, I would suggest switching every one to "percent" fully – see the decline of the inner city section especially

 Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• "In 1955 the" add a comma after the year

 Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• None of the first paragraph for hot rodding is sourced with reliable sources

 Done with primary but reliable sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• "is perfect for land speed racing" does that represent a neutral point of view

 Done I replaced that with "Holy Grail of American Hot Rodding" which is strong, but used in the source at the end of that sentence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• "National Football League" add abbreviation to the end with brackets; in this case, "NFL"

 Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• "restaurants in 43" how about "within" instead perhaps?

 Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Too much use of bold text in drive in theater section, remove the bold preferably with the text of the section itself thereafter

 Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Shopping mall" is overlinking; a common term

 Question: My thought in linking it was only because that is the topic of the section, for ease of going to the general topic. A convenience. Would it be better to use a {{main|shopping mall}} there? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Any relevant portals you may add to the see also section?

 Question: I don't really see any portals that fit. Motorsports, automobile, history, culture, all seem too broad to fit. This article is about a very specific slice of time, a particular product, and the cultural impact, making it very narrow. If there was a Portal:1950s, I would put it there, or Portal:automobile history, or similar, but I didn't find those. Maybe it is a lack of imagination on my part. I'm open to suggestions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

 Note I would suggest adding the cars, motorsports, history, and culture to the article, as I personally believe they fit, those topics are generally the main topic of the article itself, so it seems to be appropriate, but if you do not see it flow into the article, that is also fine. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 20:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 06:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done? Since neither of us are completely sure, I think the best course of action would be for me to go to each portal, make them aware of the article, and let them decide if that fits within the scope. We both can see arguments for and against, so deferring to those who have a vested interest is more likely to get the best outcome. I'm assuming this wouldn't slow down the GA process as it is a side issue, but I agree one that needs to be addressed. I will see about dropping notes later, after I take the Mrs. out for dinner. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've left a talk page message at each of those four portals. I hate to thrust it upon them and feel they would be a better judge. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable, I will start working on these issues one at a time shortly. Thanks for taking the time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No problem, thanks for writing and nominating the article! TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 20:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Looks like everything except the one question is handled, the shopping mall link. I'm fine with either solution, I just wanted to get you opinion on the best solution for that, then it looks like everything you have presented will have been fixed. I'm a GA virgin, so not sure where it goes next. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Well, I would still prefer the term to be unlinked, because, I think, most of us know what a shopping centre is, thus constituting WP:OVERLINK. That is a very minor issue, however. In regards to the good article process, it is very simple, I just pass the article now to good article status or provide further comments here. Happy new year, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 21:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I was just wondering if I should point back to the main or delete it. I'm willing to do either, just wanted guidance. I would also note that there is no way that this article would be at this state without User:Malleus Fatuorum. The fact that it has been painless is purely due to him and I would consider the credit equally belongs to him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
          •  Done I've delinked it for now. Any change to point to main can be discussed later on the talk page. I think I am completely done now, unless you have found new issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
            • Okay, the article seems to meet good article standards, and therefore I will pass the article. Good work to you and Malleus! TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 04:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
              • Thanks for the help and for taking the time. Malleus has since retired, but I will pass on the news to him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)