 | Ford Falcon (BA) was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Auto Headlights off
editThe Auto Headlights off didn't become standard until later - perhaps the MkII, but most likely the BF. In fact the reference is to an article that talks about the BF in 2006.
I have a BA XR8 that did not come with auto-headlights.
Luke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.59.18.155 (talk) 08:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- i have a BA mkI xr6 turbo with the auto headlights. They came with the lux pack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.90.70.111 (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have a 2003 BA Fairmont that has auto headlights factory fitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.216.49.250 (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
edit- This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Ford BA Falcon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This review is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- The introduction is a little short, but considering the overall quality of the article I'm not going to let this minor issue hold it back.
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- I'm surprised this article has maintained its quality over the last two years. Links checked out ok and there are plenty of citations. Prose is of a high quality, and MOS compliance exceeds GA standards. Article kept. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
Thanks for the review some things to work on maybe SenatorsTalk | Contribs 01:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
GAR
editWow, that is one poor quality GAR. Still, I didn't continue to watch it after the first positive seeming review, so that's my fault. Greglocock (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)