Talk:Citroën C3 Picasso/Archive 1

Advertising and sales

I did want to add a table for sales but can only find this information currently:

Year	UK Sales	Worldwide
2009	7891	86,500
2010	8996

Clearly there's not enough there. Thanks Jenova20 12:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a start. And it will encourage somebody to look for the other years and countries. I'd include it - except I'd do Advertising and Sales as two sections.  Stepho  talk  13:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I just spent 2 hours looking and got nothing...The UK isn't a major market for this car clearly but there's no sales figures i can find for yearly data after 2010.

Thanks for the interest Jenova20 13:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I've asked Citroen directly for sales figures, let's see how this one goes... Jenova20 10:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Be aware that other editors have to be able to verify it.  Stepho  talk  12:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well i'm hoping they're lazy and just send me a link to a website...but i'm not really holding out from a reply from them to be honest. Jenova20 15:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA Review - passed

This review is transcluded from Talk:Citroën C3 Picasso/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Reviewer: Waggers (talk · contribs) 11:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC) The title of the article should appear in bold text in the first sentence, and the first sentence should be a definition of the subject (see WP:BOLDTITLE): The Citroën C3 Picasso is a motor car that was unveiled at the 2008 Paris Motor Show...  Done Jenova20 13:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC) The article reads well and appears to be well balanced I can't see a wikilink to Citroën other than in the info box - I'd expect the first "Citroën" in the text (outside of the title) to be linked Done Jenova20 13:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC) In the Variants and features section "Brazil(ian)" is linked but "UK" isn't, which seems incongruous. Done Jenova20 13:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I had to click on the Euro NCAP link to find out what NCAP stands for, but then again I'm not hugely knowledgeable about cars. If it's not a common term I'd spell it out in full first time around (but no need to if your average car buff would recognise the term). The same is true for ESC, although it's spelt out in full later in the article. DoneJenova20 14:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Optional extras - why are the roof racks and kerb side lights obvious? This seems subjective to me, and is unreferenced. - It is referenced that they are options, it is not referenced that they are "obvious" since i felt this was common sense. People will notice the difference between a car with a roof rack and one without, and lights in the mirrors that are visible at every angle of the car even without being knowledgable on cars. Thanks Jenova20 14:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)  DoneJenova20 15:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Slightly pedantic, this one: in the criticism section, "French made" should be "French-made" Done Jenova20 13:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Awards - magazine titles should be in italics. Done Jenova20 13:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Purely a matter of personal preference, but I would put the references into a couple of columns using {{reflist|2}} Done Jenova20 12:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Ideally references should use the {{cite web}} templates, showing the page title, publisher and date accessed as well as the URL.Can you confirm that i'm doing it correct? Thanks Jenova20 14:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Yes, you're making good progress there.waggers (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Done Jenova20 12:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC) I haven't checked all of the references but those I have checked are live and the text appears to be faithful to them. There isn't anything in the article unreferenced.  Done Thanks Jenova20 14:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC) The article doesn't seem to be fully categorised - compare with the categories on the Peugeot 207 article for example. Done Jenova20 14:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC) The advertising and awards sections should be converted into prose, per WP:EMBEDI feel the advertising section already covers as much information as possible there, should i just get rid of the 2 bullet points? I left them as i thought it made it more obvious to the reader that there is 2 advertisements. Thanks Jenova20 14:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Yep, I think what's written there is fine, it probably just needs to be two normal paragraphs instead of two bullet points. waggers (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)  Done Jenova20 12:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC) If another image can be sourced, perhaps of the car's interior, I think this would enhance the article.  Done Jenova20 09:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Overall I wouldn't say it's GA status yet but isn't far off, and addressing some of the above should help it on it's way. waggers (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Thanks so much Waggers. Please continue to point out anything amiss no matter how trivial and i'll do what i can to correct it and up the quality of the article. Jenova20 14:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC) No worries, great work so far! Re #6, I misunderstood "obvious" as meaning "it's obvious you'd want these on your car" as opposed to "when present, they're very obvious". Maybe "substantial" is a better word? I think converting the awards and adverts sections to prose is optional at this stage, it's not a showstopper for GA. I'd like to see a few more categories added though, then I'll be happy to give it the nod. waggers (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Well i'll change what i can to comply and boost the status of the article and it's great that you replied and reviewed in such a helpful manner. I've reached critical mass for this article and i'm trying to add more but struggling to find much now. I'll update your list anyway as i can. Thanks again Waggers Jenova20 15:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Success As with any article there are still improvements that can be made but I'm more than satisfied that this now meets the GA criteria. Congratulations! waggers (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Yeah! =D That was a surprise but I'll keep working on it Waggers. Thanks Jenova20 11:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Now that I'm able to contribute instead of just review I've now added those categories! Please consider reviewing some other good article nominees as there's a huge backlog of articles waiting for assessment. waggers (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC) Fab. Would love to but my current to-do list was just to get this article to good status. Which means I'll be going back to my current project User:Jenova20/Birmingham Gay Village with the hope of getting that up and running. You're always welcome to help me with that since I'm sure more notable articles is more important than having others already here at a better quality. Quantity over quality in this case. Thanks Jenova20 19:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC) This needs still some work...this is too much UK centric and needs more info... -->Typ932 T·C 14:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC) If you have any please contribute as i'm working on a lot currently and my to-do list just isn't getting smaller. Thanks for the additions anyway, they're brilliant (except the tag obviously). I'll see what i can dig up. Thanks Jenova20 15:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Optional extras

Just wondering: is "Optional extras" a UK-ism? Obviously, that term is a redundancy. In the US we use either "options" or "extras". ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I actually have an American sitting next to me who confirms what you say. But, the features I'm pointing out are optional and they are extras for the car. I don't think it would make much sense to change it to just 'options' or 'extras'.

Is this car available in America do you know? Thanks Jenova20 19:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't know, but have never seen one. Can't find any for sale in the US. ~E_[edit]~E184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Are there options that are not extra? Or extras that are not optional? ~E184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

How about "Optional features"? ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC) It's no big deal -- more of a curiosity. ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

An option that isn't an extra would be an upgrade (eg manual vs automatic, basic stereo system vs top-of-the-line stereo system, or SOHC vs DOHC). But I'd prefer the simple word 'options'.  Stepho  talk  10:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Go with "options" since "upgrades" is biased and inappropriate.

Options are more than one choice, upgrades are improvements and that's POV considering some are decor related and serve no other function. Also i don't get the logic with the Americanisms being mentioned since this car can't be bought in America and that seems redundant. Thanks Jenova20 22:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ghostbusters reloaded

Upon first reading, I was a little confused (was wondering if this was referring to 'product placement' in a movie, or perhaps a print campaign). Although the Cadillac/Ghostbusters photo is cool, its relevance seems a bit stretched (they didn't use a Porsche 911 or a Nash Metropolitan either). Did that vehicle appear in the advert (US:"commercial")?^{[You should probably leave it in -- I get the dry humor or "humour"]} → Which reminds me, isn't there a tag for something like: "this article uses Britspeak -- Yanks, don't mess with it!" ←[Just kidding] ~Eric F_[edit2x] ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The 'Brit speak' tag is {{British English}}. I've just added it to the top of this talk page (it shouldn't go on the article page itself).  Stepho  talk  10:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What was wrong with the picture? i thought it fitted in that advertising section perfectly. Thanks Jenova20 23:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't delete it but I'll comment anyway. I don't mind the Cadillac picture but it would probably confuse the average reader to see "this is not the C3" picture. Better if the Caddy picture was paired with a picture of the C3 - both in the same role. The idea is to emphasis what the C3 is rather then what vehicle was in the movie. I assume that the nicely formatted references were put back to their bare form when you revert the image deletion.  Stepho  talk  04:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a proper revision so no. I only added the picture in, i didn't undo any other edits.

I would imagine the reader could see the first picture and then notice that there's a difference, that it is in the section about the ghostbusters and then talks about the ghostbusters. Waggers never mentioned it so i didn't see anything wrong. Thanks Jenova20 08:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

FA review

FA Review - Withdrew/Failed

Nominator(s): Jenova20 09:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC) I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it to be of a standard higher than good now and at the very least the article would be improved from this candidacy. Thanks Jenova20 09:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC) A few comments to start off, I haven't read the article yet. Note that it's generally a good idea to have a WP:Peer review between GA and FAC. The lead is too short, that should be expanded. (See WP:LEAD for the guideline.) There are a lot of short sections, they should probably be condensed into larger sections. The page has a cluttered feel to it, lots of pictures and charts all over the place. There's one link to a disambiguation page that should be fixed. Done Is Autogear.us a reliable source? (WP:RS) Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC) I've moved some sections around and removed others. What do you think of it now? Also i was told to add more pictures in the good article candidacy as you can see on the talk page. Every single thing is referenced and AutoGear.us in this case is well informed on specifications of the car so i do believe them to be appropriate, even for a blog/low-key auto news source. Also which link to a disambig page is wrong? Opinions Thanks Jenova20 16:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Well, since you said you want comments, here are a few more. I encourage you to withdraw this nomination and try to get a thorough peer review. To prove that Autogear is reliable you would have to provide evidence that it is a "third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per WP:RS. Even if it is useful and accurate, it may not qualify. MPV is the link I meant. The dabs on the article are listed here, for future reference. Done The external links section should come after the references section.  Done In a caption you have "Reviews of the "plasticky" interior were mixed.", who are you quoting there? How does the picture of a 1959 Cadillac held the reader understand this article?Removed Done Numbers less than 10 should generally be written out (i.e. "two out of three" rather than "2 out of 3"). Mark Arsten (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Done Oppose, based on criteria 1b, 2a and 2c. I'm far from an expert, but I just can't believe this would be a comprehensive study of the subject. I feel like every section could be expanded with more information. Not enough context is given for general readers, for instance: "The chassis platform used for the vehicle is a modified version from the Citroën C3 and the Peugeot 207, giving it a comparable wheelbase" - this means nothing to me. The lead needs to be substantially expanded, to summarise the entire article, before it can even be consider for FA status. Lastly, citations are not formatted consistently. --Lobo (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Oppose and suggest withdrawal per Lobo. Content-wise, it barely--if at all--meets GA status; the lead does not satisfy WP:LEAD; and there is just too little information on what I reckon to be a very popular subject. Auree ★★ 17:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Can i get realistic detailled suggestions for content improvements from everyone so at least i have some idea where to go from here and improve the article. And all the criteria for Good Article status was met and the User:Waggers provided what i compare to this so far to be absolutely flawless reviewing. Thanks Jenova20 18:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC) The place for "detailed suggestions for content improvements" is WP:Peer review. I also just suggest reading through a load of FAC reviews to get an idea of the requirements (standards are very high), and read over similar FAs to see what they do. You'll find this extremely helpful, I'm sure. Don't be disheartened—you've underestimated the requirements for FAs, but there's no reason this article can't get there with more work. You just need to make sure you have a full grasp of the criteria. --Lobo (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC) I haven't underestimated the criteria, as i state above i just want it to be improved and was expecting the kind of support i got at the Good article review. I thought that's what the review would aim for like last time, improvement rather than 2 lines and a vote. Thanks Jenova20 19:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Oppose as per above comments. For me the Lead is too short and there is not enough information in all the other sections. Also, a curious use of the Ghostbusters car image. To justify it's inclusion, you state: "The original Ghostbusters did not use a C3 Picasso" - why the image then? It's not really relevant to have this image included based on the fact it was not used in something. If that was the case then the images would be endless. Sorry. -- Cassianto (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC) I left it in because the good article review never mentioned it. I'll remove it now. Thanks Jenova20 19:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Oppose per above. Lede is especially noticeable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

To Do List

With This reference: [1] I have emissions and mileage for the following models:

• VTY
• VTR+Y
• BlackcherryY
• Connexion
• Airdream+
• ExclusiveY
• 90th Anniversary

I have 3 left to find but if someone beats me to it then please post here. Thanks Jenova20 10:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

---

http://www.citroenet.org.uk/passenger-cars/psa/c3/c3-picasso/c3-picasso19.html Could provide some much welcome additions to the article in the way of design and the mindset Citroen had when the designed it. Could also do with a designer's name for the article if one can be found. Thanks Jenova20 16:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Table

Emissions (g/km) and fuel economy (mpg)
Model	1.4 VTi 16V		1.6 VTi 16V		1.6 HDi 8V		1.6 HDi 16V
	CO2	Mpg	CO2	Mpg	CO2	Mpg	CO2	Mpg
VT	149	44.1	NA	NA	119	61.4	123	60
VTR+	149	44.1	159	40.9	112	62	119	62
Blackcherry	NA	NA	NA	NA	119	61	NA	NA
Connexion	NA	NA	NA	NA	119	61	NA	NA
Airdream+	NA	NA	NA	NA	119	61	119	62
Exclusive	149 (95bhp)	44.1 (95bhp)	137 (120bhp) 149 (120bhp)	47 (120bhp) 44 (120bhp)	112 (90bhp) 125 (110bhp)	62 (90bhp) 58 (110bhp)	119 (90bhp) 62 (110bhp)	129 (90bhp) 57 (110bhp)
Limited Edition 90 year anniversary	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	130	57

Prices

I think car prices should be removed, they are not signifant information for this kind of car, its also agains WP:PRICES and car prices varies very much from country to country and this is international wikipedia, so those prices are really not needed here.-->Typ932 ^T·C 10:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I direct your attention to this "Product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention."

I have used only the biggest markets launch prices for the vehicle and comparisons between different variants prices so i believe this to be justified in line with the policy.

A Good article candidacy bought no mention of this and neither did the Featured article candidacy so i believe that also to be a good view to how they have been used in this instance. Thanks Jenova20 12:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"there is a justified reason for their mention." I think this means there is good reason for pubslishing prices, for example the price is exceptionally high or low , or is significally lower than competitors or so on. If you look most of the car articles dont have prices, because they vary so much and there is really no point to publish those, trim levels, year models, taxations, salary levels and so on makes comparisons pointless. If you know the price for UK or France dont give nothing for those living any other 205 country -->Typ932 ^T·C 14:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The biggest market is Europe and the UK, so i've published the lowest trim and highest price for that. I have complied with the policy you mention and countless people reviewing the article have saw fit to not take issue with it. I can't agree with your request to remove them as you appear to have a problem with them being there in principal. There are no taxes or salary levels included and using "most other car articles" as a measuring stick holds no weight when your example policy has not been violated. Thanks Jenova20 18:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Price information is likely to date quickly, not least because our political class are bent on debauching our currencies because they have noticed that spending money we don't have on wars (known, in politicalspeak, as schoolsandhospitals) we don't need gets them elected. I guess any joke is on the people doing the electing. But on the price thing, how about something like ..."when launched the manufacturer's published price on the French market was €20,000, which compared with €21,000 for the Renault XXX (I don't know) , its most successful domestic market competitor at the time."? That gives the price some context for a reader coming to the entry in ten years time. I agree the wiki entry can and shold evolve, but this price stuff can easily cease to make much sense even more quickly than you, or A N Other, can keep up with the price movements. If you want to major on the role the car plays/played on the UK market, I guess you can use a similar phrase, comparing the price to - Vauxhall Meriva? - but I sense you've researched this stuff more closely than I, so if you can find a competitor vehicle that looks like the price setter in this particular market niche, that's the one to use for a price comparison. Regards Charles01 (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking again at what I just wrote, maybe when writing Meriva I should have written Zafira. And I suspect that for this particular segment/class, VW and Ford, on the UK market, will indeed be looking closely at the Zafira when pricing their own challengers. Ditto Citroen.

While researching, can you read the C3 Picasso article and see that i have listed launch prices and not current prices. Thanks Jenova20 18:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. For what it's worth I agree with your implicit judgement that the manufacturer's recommended retail price at launch is a more useful figure than the equivalent price at some randomly selected subsequent date. But even the price at launch will mean less and less as the currency depreciates! And alas. (Incidentaly, I was wrong about the Zafira. Meriva is a closer fit now they've shrunk the Picassp and Vauxhalls/Opels keep growing bigger. But you'd probably figured all that out already.) Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

A valid comparison in price between competition would be useful as you say. Thanks for clarifying what you meant there Charles. Thanks Jenova20 19:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I dont even know why you have Spanish prices on the article as biggest markets in Europe during the first quarter of this year is Germany, Britain, France and Italy. I said "most other car articles" because we in WP:CARS try to make every car article with same style and have some consistency with articles. You can also look how the other GA status car arcticles looks, or any other almost GA article. -->Typ932 ^T·C 03:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I am part of that project, have been for about a year and used a Bentley article as the comparison. Spain prices for this year are not in the article, but the ones for the first year of sale in Spain (that i could find) are. Seriously have you read the article? You appear to be picking over things that are either incorrect or untrue.

Also with reference to tagging the rival cars with a "citation needed" the references are already in the "reviews" section further down. Thanks Jenova20 08:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

They should be in the right section, the review section does not mention of these cars either, there was reason why we removed the similar/rivals field from the infobox... Also it doesnt matter are they 2011 or 2012 prices, I speak prices generally, but why there is Spanish prices? Generally speaking I have not read this fully through, but I can see straight away whats wrong it. -->Typ932 ^T·C 15:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

What's "wrong with it" is you are asserting incorrect things because as you admit, you have not read it. I referenced the competitors you tagged as needing a citation but had not done it originally as the lede paragraph does not usually contain citations.

Spain has prices that show comparisons between their 3 different trim levels for the first year of sale i could find, they are applicable to Spain only because the trim variants are different in Spain.

Now, if you intend to ask questions which could be answered by you actually reading the article then don't bother as i will no longer respond since it would be a waste of time for both of us. On the other hand if you have something constructive or another question i haven't already answered then go ahead. Thanks Jenova20 15:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

How would the article come better if I read it through? I just pointed its errors to you , that you can make it better. But I think Ill leave this article now, because you dont seem to be able constructive discussion or dont want to change anything and follow Wikipedia policies. -->Typ932 ^T·C 05:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not what i wanted but with no constructive discussion here it's not very disappointing news. Especially when you can see countless other discussions on this page of changes and suggested improvements to the article. Removing prices just for the sake of it is not what the policy you provided encourages, would not be productive and would remove a lot of the information that is holding the "Launch" section together. This is why i don't agree with removing them just for the sake of it.

Thanks Jenova20 08:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If Spain is the biggest market for this car, then I understand why you included it. Nonetheless, I still don't think the introductory pricing should be in the article as its price is not all that important. Prices are generally only included if they are extreme in some way. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually i have to agree with you completely. Spain isn't really gonna have different prices from the rest of Europe and since i couldn't actually find original sale prices for them i will remove them there. Other than that Prices between the start price and most Exclusive model are certainly encyclopedic. It's just a shame i couldn't get a price for the Limited Edition 90th Anniversary model as i really did want to know why they only sold 1 and if that was a factor.

I'll remove Spanish prices since they don't contribute anything.

Any other suggestions? Thanks Jenova20 20:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)