Talk:AMC AMX III/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JPxG (talk · contribs) 01:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll do my best. Vroom vroom jp×g 01:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Boy, this sure is a huge-ass and well written article about a cool-ass car. Here is my whole deal:

Copy

• In the "Planning at AMC" section, I don't see many dates on when things happened (i.e. when did they do the planning and when did they reduce the production target?) Were these present in sources? An interval would be fine, but to not have anything is confusing.
• been created under time pressure in parallel with the Bizzarrini Manta show car

Why is "show car" italicized?

• AMC looked for a possibility to have the technology of the mid-engine sports car constructed by

"sought to have the technology"? What does "the technology" specifically refer to?

• development helper

This doesn't seem like a very good caption.

• "Model description" seems like a weird section heading.
• All wheels are suspended on double wishbones single.

"All wheels are suspended singly on double wishbones"? This whole part is strange: it says each wheel has coil springs and double shocks, and at the rear, the springs and shocks are each doubled. Is this saying each rear wheel has two separate coil springs and four shocks???

• The handcrafted sheet steel hatchback body is joined to the floor pan to form a self-supporting. Unit welded. With a height of 1.10 m, it is very flat, but exceptionally wide at 1.92 m.

I accidentally the whole self-supporting. I assume this is supposed to be "unibody". I don't know what "unit-welded" refers to here. Since this is an American car, the height should be in a {{convert}} template.

• 4.5-liter

This should be {{convert}}ed.

• A quarter of a year later

"Three months"?

• "a real gem" (a real gem).

??

• Salvatore Diomante sold it in 1971 in incomplete condition to Giorgio Giordanengo, who runs a business restoring classic Italian sports cars

Since this was 50 years ago, it seems unlikely that he still runs the business.

• This car was a milestone. It was born out of a unique project that brought together some of the brightest minds in the automotive world of the late 1960s and 1970s.[19]

This should be formatted as a <blockquote></blockquote> and attributed to who said it in-text, not just with a citation.

• The technical data section seems to just repeat a bunch of stuff from the "model description" section. I would recommend removing the table, and incorporating its information into "model description", and renaming it "Technical specifications".

• I would recommend renaming "Literature" to "Further reading".

Ref check

• I don't know about using an illustration of a car as a reference. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fwAKdQMmplI/TdaNSrwBO-I/AAAAAAAADrw/_YHiNkBzapI/s1600/AMX2Protorear.jpg is cited alongside a reference to a book, so it seems fine to me. A black-and-white image being used to support that a car was photographed in red livery is sus.

• Ref names like description of the third chassis of the AMX/3 on the website amx3.org and description-of-the-fourth-chassis-of-the-AMX/3 on the website amx3.org ought to be formatted properly or put in {{cite web}} templates that have the URL, title, website, author, and date (can usually be found in the source of a webpage or through image filenames if it isn't listed in plain text). For example, https://amx3.org/chassis-2/ doesn't have a date, but in the source of the page we see <meta property="article:published_time" content="2019-07-29T16:22:48+00:00" />. I would put this as <ref name="chassis02">{{cite web|url=https://amx3.org/chassis-2/|title=Chassis No. 02 – AMC AMX/3|website=amx3.org|date=2019-07-29}}</ref>.

• Such as the Ferrari 250 GTO, the A.T.S. GT (Wolfgang Blaube: Six against Enzo looks like it belongs in "Notes".

• Overall, it seems like a lot of the refs are formatted badly, and should be double-checked (there are lots of them that are just URLs linked with titles, no author, no publication, no date).

Anyway, this is a pretty cool article and I'm glad that it exists. Thanks for submitting it to GAN!

jp×g 03:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

JPxG, thank you for reviewing, I will check your review later this day in detail. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

JPxG, I modified it like suggested, thanks again, regarding the Images I am not sure if we can use them because of possible Copyrights (?!). CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like some progress has been made. I'll look in more depth in a little bit. jp×g 20:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

JPxG, I am grateful for any help. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford: There are still some issues here that haven't been fixed. Some of the refs are still bad; I see Chicago Tribune of 22 November 1969, p. 7 as a citation, is there no title or author? Other things should be formatted differently: for example, Example text should be Example text. In general, the examples at Template:Cite_web#Title illustrate what I am talking about here: the title parameter should just be the title of the page§ (either the one displayed on the page, or what shows up in the title bar when you navigate to it), not a description of what the page is. There are 99 references, so this might be a pain in the ass (I prefer to use list-defined references for this reason), but it shouldn't take too long to go through the ones that are citing improper page titles and fix them. The ones you've done so far are good. jp×g 02:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

JPxG, thanks for reviewing, I hope now I converted all of them. Example text should be Example text ?? Sorry but any reference does have a title like requested which should be sufficient. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I messed that up. I meant to say, title=Short description of AMC AMX/3 on the website www.ultimatecarpage.com should be title=AMC AMC/3|website=Ultimatecarpage.com... taking a look at the rest now. jp×g 10:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

JPxG, i have overseen 3 refs, should now really be fine. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Ping JPxG ... WP:GAN/I#PASS ?! :) CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the delay; I'll get to it today. jp×g 18:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, here is my go-over: I still see looked for a possibility to have the technology of the mid-engine sports car constructed, and the part where it talks about the rear suspension is still unclear. Is it saying that there are four or eight shock absorbers on the rear? There are some undercarriage photos you can find online and see what the deal is but I would recommend finding an actual source that says in text what the deal is. Additionally, the blockquote ("This car was a milestone [...]") doesn't have any attribution. Who said that? There are also a few minor things (like "8 millionlire" not being spaced); most issues are fixed, but I'd recommend going over the whole thing with a fine-toothed comb. jp×g 20:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

JPxG, quote+references and sources inserted as requested. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford: Per my last comment, there are still a few prose and copy issues that have to be fixed before I can pass the article. jp×g 22:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

JPxG, then I would suggest mentioning them. I cannot fix things I do not have any knowledge of. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford: They are in the comment directly above your last one, starting with "Okay, here is my go-over". jp×g 22:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

JPxG, if you refer to "looked for a possibility to have the technology of the mid-engine sports car constructed," - I do not see the issue, it is directly quoted and referenced. Regarding the images - all I found is copyrighted and it will be the last thing I do to insert copyvio material to get a GA pass, beside I think it has enough images. The rear suspension is now referenced with direct block quote in the reference. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, looks fine to me. Passing. Good work! jp×g 22:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

JPxG, thank you for reviewing !! If you once need someone to review yours let me know (well, if i have knowledge of the subject of matter) CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)