Talk:Ford Falcon (BA)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Some factual corrections

I'd like to point out some factual errors that need to be addressed in the article.

• The new inline-six engine did not have 25 kW over the old Windsor, as the Windsor refers to the V8 and had 175 kW (at the very least). I think you're thinking of the previous SOHC six-cylinder engine.
• The engines were not developed in Canada. The six-cylinder has basically nothing to do with Canada. The 5.4 L V8 was designed in North America, but the Barra & Boss version was a bit of a Frankenstein mix of parts partly developed in Australia.
• Incidentally, the article refers to the 5.4 L engine as the Windsor, which is incorrect. It should be either Barra V8 or Boss.
• The XR8 has a 32-valve V8 not a 24-valve. I am a bit ambivalent about this problem being solved by removing all mention of valves.
• There is mention of the control-blade suspension being cheaper to build but not much explanation of the reason for the XT model being 130kg heavier.
• The article also fails to mention some sedans in the AU range were fitted with IRS as well, which would add some context to the section on Control Blade IRS being cheaper but not "better" and clear up ambiguity. It seems the article currently implies that the Control Blade suspension is not much better than the live rear axle.
• The BA design was indeed presided over by Simon Butterworth, but there should also probably be some mention of Nick Hogios who's fairly prominent in the design of the XR models.
• The six-speed manual was only made available on the BA MkII models.
• Info about engines in the infobox is incorrect and at odds with the info in the main article.

I'll leave it up to Senators to maintain the article and make corrections, work in changes etc. Overall, the article has improved a great deal over what it used to be, but more could still be done. VectorD 02:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

•  Done The issues above have been fixed.

Photos

So now the only two photos we have of this car are police cars? That's awful. SteveBaker 14:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

•  Done pictues have been fixed

More errors

I give up. Too many edit conflicts. I've corrected the fact that the control blade was only used in the sedan and that the wagon and ute retained leaf springs carried over from the AU. That said, the following also need to be addressed in addition to the issues mentioned above:

1. The intro says that the engine was carried over!
2. LPG E-gas (autogas) engine is not mentioned. Has different HP, etc. to petrol engine.# Unsure if utility correctly describes the cab/chassis model.
3. Fairlane, wagon and ute wheelbases are not the same as the sedan. Wagon has same floorpan as longer-wheelbase Fairlane.
4. Should the fairlane also be in this article? It is a derivative.
5. Fairmont is not a falcon. It is a different marketing model, even if the difference is only in options, trim and badges.
6. no such thing as superseding model variations. Is this meant to be derived models?

--Athol Mullen 01:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Some tips on improving this article

I would like to point out some issues / facts that are missing in the article.

• Create sections under: specification levels for the XT, Futura and XR6 variants.
• Create a section for the BA MkII edition.
• I have noticed that the article writes in present tense, when really words such as are and is should be replaced by was and were, although in several cases this should be ignored when you are talking about problems that occur in the vehicle today for instance. I have fixed up most of the cases of this in the article – this is just for future reference.
• Get an image(s) of the utility variant, and possibly the Fairmont or Fairmont Ghia specification levels.
• Find out the exact transmissions that the car uses → then include then in the infobox, and article if necessary.
• The article has no mention of the Ford Territory, a car that is based heavily on the BA.
• The Issues and criticisms section has no mention of the cars poor resale value.

OSX 03:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

•  Done The problems above have been adressed

Grammar

The quality of the grammar in this article remains terrible. I'd like to suggest that the principal editors check out this page User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a: redundancy exercises - and also run the article through a grammar checker. SteveBaker 15:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Criteria

From the Good article pages, we should ask how this article measures up to the criteria set up under "What is a good article?"

A good article has the following attributes.

1) It is well written. In this respect:

I wouldn't describe it as well written - the grammar is terrible.

• it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;

I wouldn't describe it as 'compelling' - but it's comprehensible.

• it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);

This is OK.

• It follows certain elements of the Wikipedia Manual of style, namely the Article lead guideline, Article layout guideline, Jargon guideline, Words to avoid using guideline, How to write about Fiction guideline, and List incorporation." necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.

Again, not too bad.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

• it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;

No - there are many unreferenced facts here.

• it must be possible to trace all sources of an article through inline citations that use an accepted form. Articles or sections on Mathematics, Physics, and Chemistry should, however, adhere to the guideline on scientific citations.

No.

• sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;

Definitely not - web-based references aren't really considered solid - books and print magazines are much better sources.

• it contains no elements of original research.

It's hard to tell because there are so many unsourced facts in the article.

3) It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

• it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);

I'm no expert on this car - but judging from the comments from people above - I'd say 'No'.

• it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).

I'd say that when the article veers off into discussing the colours of the knobs on the radio, we'd definitely strayed into "unnecessary detail".

4) It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

• viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;

OK - it's a car article - it's hardly controversial!

• all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.

Yes - this seems OK.

5) It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.

Not really - we're seeing an average of 8 edits per day with two entirely new sections added just yesterday.

6) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

Well, there are two images of police cars - which seems excessive - but the two other pictures look almost identical (despite one of them being a pickup truck!). How about some cars in different colours? A shot from the side or towards the back somewhere? For the utility truck version - we really need to see a side view.

• the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;

Yep - we're good here.

• a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.

OK.

• any non-free images have a fair use rationale

No fair use images used! Great!

So IMHO, the article has a long way to go to meet Good Article status. In my view, it should be rejected - but since I have constributed to the article, I muse recuse myself and let others deal with that. SteveBaker 16:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Dialectic error

By definition, because this is an article about an Australian vehicle, the dialect of english to be used throughout the article is Australian english. This includes the infobox.

The Australian english word is kerb, not curb. Also, Australia uses the term mass rather than weight and has done so in all automotive applications since metrication in the 1970s. Hence, the correct term is Kerb mass, with the less preferable term Kerb weight being a technically incorrect common-use alternative. The US english term Curb weight does not belong anywhere in this article. --Athol Mullen 00:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That seems fair - but the fields in the infobox are there for all car articles - it's a standard - you can't just change it here, the template wouldn't work if you did. We just don't have different dialect versions of that infobox. This is more a question for the automotive project in general than for just this article. I have a number of British-English car articles - with the exact same problem. British speakers would use 'Laden' and 'Unladen' weight (with and without passengers, luggage and fuel) - rather than Curb/Kerb weight/mass. However, my Mini article went all the way through to front page featured article with that problem - so I don't think it's a great obstacle to success. This is the price of standardization I guess. SteveBaker 00:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Issues

The article is a bit more detailed now, but there are still a few issues that need to be addressed. Namely, the suspension bit needs work, as discussed above which still has not been fixed. It's still not clear which AU suspension type the article is comparing with. It's a fairly ambiguous paragraph and now seems to suggest that the live rear axle was first developed for the Ford Focus, which is simply not the case! A few more references for the article would also be good and a few minor grammar issues exist (e.g: too instead of to).

Another minor but important point is that the symbol for horsepower is "hp" not "hP".

The Issues and Criticisms section needs a lot of work. It seems to be a little biased, especially since there are no references for the claims. The Ford Barra/Boss V8s have pretty conclusively shown higher fuel consumption than the Holden Gen III V8. On the other hand, talking about how towing forces the rear downwards and causes the car to "travel non-aerodynamically" seems a bit trivial for several reasons:

1. I have my doubts as to whether "non-aerodynamically" is correct English usage or not. I think a better alternative would be "increased drag" or "less aerodynamic."
2. Towing a caravan will cause the rear to sag a bit on basically all cars, so this shouldn't be a specific BA Falcon criticism.
3. The sag is only a few millimetres or centimetres at most. The drag this contributes is most likely negligible, especially compared to the drag contributed by the caravan itself.
4. To say that this small amount of extra drag is the cause of significantly higher fuel consumption when towing is a dubious claim at best. The weight of the caravan is the most likely contributor to high fuel consumption.

The article is slowly getting there and probably will get the GA status eventually, but I feel these things need to be sorted first. VectorD 09:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

•  Done The listing above have been fixed

:No, it is not done. Adding the words "more than it's [sic] rival" does not solve the problem. First of all, the Commodore with its compromised semi-trailing arm rear suspension is well known to splay out the rear wheels and sag when towing, most likely more so than the Falcon. Secondly, like I said, all cars sag somewhat when towing. The section still implies that it's the sag that causes the significantly increased fuel consumption. VectorD 05:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

GA failed

As of [1], the article in this review, I failed this article for Good Article status with the following reasons, per WP:WIAGA:

1. The lead is too short, does not summarize the whole article. Read again WP:LS.
2. Prose is poor, need a lot of copyediting. There are too many short sentences and poor grammar. To name a few (only random samples):
   • Simon Butterworth was the design director for the BA and the next generation BF. is the first sentence of the article body. Who is Simon Butterworth? Why abbreviation BA & BF are used directly?
   • The XR8 was the top of the line sports variant. → which line? missing some words.
   • When new, the XT had a starting price of AU$32,000. → missing a subject in the first clause and please drop all prices, they are not useful here, unless you are writing a marketing report.
   • Interior Design Manager for the BA was Marcus Hotblack his main endeavors was to emphasisize the "user friendliness". → missing commas, I can't get the logic of this sentence, typos and what is "user friendliness"?
   • and there are a lot more, I mean, really a lot of bad prose sentences.

When the above issues are resolved, the article can be renominated back. As always if the editors disagree about this review, the article can be submitted to WP:GA/R. — Indon (reply) — 16:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

 Done the issues above have been fixed

In Australia, and on Wiki, we speak English

This article is written in some other language, I think Gibberish, or possibly Mee krob. It is appalling. What is the Design and Development section even trying to say? And to be honest I don't know why Territory even gets a mention. Also I am very dubious of the provenance of that picture of the IRS, I know exactly what program was used to create it and doubt strongly that it was ever legally released to the public. Greglocock 11:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There are too many 'fair use' photos here anyway - but if you know that graphic should not be here - then delete it and put up a WP:MFD request to get it purged. Diagrams are highly dubious 'fair use' because one of the major planks of fair use is that the image cannot be replaced by anything else. Clearly it is possible to redraw a diagram relatively easily so the only justification for putting one up here is if the diagram itself is what is being discussed (which is emphatically not the case here). Yep - it's gotta go. SteveBaker 19:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging the articles together

It has been sugested that the Specification levels of the Ford BA Falcon article and the Ford BA Falcon article should be merged, this is unnecessary because this would make the Ford BA Falcon article to long. If you want to discuss this issue in more detail then please go to my talk page.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 05:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Adding the stuff from Specification levels of the Ford BA Falcon into Ford BA Falcon would utterly ruin the latter. However, if the information from the specifications article isn't put somewhere, it's probably overdue for an AfD because by itself it's pretty awful. On balance, I think we should keep this article as good as it can be (which means NOT cluttering it up with long lists of largely irrelevent data) - and let the specification article live or die by itself. It ought to be possible to clean up and expand upon the specifications article and get it into reasonable shape - it's never going to be an FA - but it can be fleshed out enough to remain, IMHO. SteveBaker 06:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

GA proposal June 2007

First para overlinked. Generally the page includes multiples of the same links eg VDC. You should only link one of each. The grammar is poor, with inconsistent tenses, and the language used is at once pompous and obtuse. Sentences like "The Falcon XT was the entry-level model marketed toward fleet sales, and sold in the most numbers by large majority" should be shot on sight. A long way to go. Greglocock 06:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: OK let me start off by saying this article has a long way to go before it will be worthy of the title.

• Citations are not adequately presented, since author and date of publication information is missing. Also, please do not put www.drive.com.au as the publisher, as that is the website domain, not the publisher. You really should change this to Fairfax Media. A similar approach should be followed for the other publishers.
• Delete the IRS image, and spread out the existing two free images.
• The awards section should be axed all together, and incorporated into the existing text if relevant. There is no need to mention every award, just the important ones.
• The poor prose, grammar, and sentence structure need to be fixed, and please mind your spelling. I found several mistakes in just a quick five-minute cleanup.
• Inaccuracies are also prevalent throughout the entire article.
• With the engines table, you will need to find the torque figured for the E-gas engine. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: Grammar is a huge issue for this article. In just the introductory paragraph, there is use of Peacock words ("enviously"), first-person pronouns ("we"), and repetitious word use ("although" leads off both of the last two sentences, which need to be rewritten as a single cohesive sentence rather than two disjointed clauses). The second paragraph features misuse of the word "transpired" (I think "conspired" might be closer to the writer's intent) and clunky syntax on the second sentence. The third paragraph was where I stopped; misuse of "impressions" and "eradicated" were obvious. Someone familiar with this model needs to go through and do a thorough copy-edit before it has any chance of getting promoted. Horologium t-c 00:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the first three paragraphs of the article, so I will recuse myself from any further discussion of GA status. If I have introduced errors into the article (a possibility, as I am not Australian), please correct them. Horologium t-c 01:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I went through and copy-edited everything except for the "specification levels" section. I need someone who is familiar with this car to review my work and make sure I didn't change any meaning anywhere; I tried to be careful, but I have been known to make mistakes. Horologium t-c 03:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The above issues have pretty much been resolved. Conversely, the article would benefit if the lead were to better summarise the article, and if the Exterior design section was to be expanded. Also, the criticism section has no mention of the poor quality of many of the components, especially the brakes, which are said to shudder. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is no longer an embarassing mess. I think you are opening a minefield if you are going to start discussing component quality, or reliability in general. [[2]] Greglocock 09:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting we discuss the poor quality of every component, just the notable ones, such as the below par brakes, and to some extent engine reliability. I think you would be right about the havoc that would be created by talking about the entire car's overall quality. Anyway, the Top secret! The quality survey every car buyer must see article was a good read. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose what I was getting at was that in the context of all the quality failings of all Australian manufactured cars, you'll spend more time recording defects than is worthwhile. No other nationality indulges in an orgy of self inflicted criticism. And to be fair, blaming component quality for brake shudder implies you don't know why it occurs. I do.Greglocock 10:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No, your dead right, I don't know why it occurs, but it is besides the point. Ford should have addressed the issues before production. Other manufacturers (even mainstream) seem to have the ability to do so, and in the end it is the automakers themselves who are going to loose the battle if the don't get their act together. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, you would have to do the same for all other cars produced by all other manufacturers in all other countries. From a quick glance through other car pages nobody else thinks this is worth doing, unless an unusual recall or safety is involved. For instance the Lotus Esprit page makes no mention of the many many recalls and safety advisories and unfixed problems that have been issued over the years. Neither does the VE Commodore article. All cars have problems that are not fixed before production. The important thing to note from that survey is not that the Falcon came bottom, but that it had 60% as many faultless cars as the best. Now, I don't agree with that survey for many reasons, but 20 years ago the Australian manufacturers would have been recording 3 times as many faults per car as the best in class, which in itself would have been worse than recent results. This reduced gap between best and worst is a worldwide phenomenon, eg [[3]] in which the average car had just less than twice as many faults as the best car. Greglocock 19:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

European look vs New Edge

I find this a confusing contrast since the highest selling New Edge car worldwide was probably the Focus, a European car. Also note that the correct terminology with respect to aesthetics is that the the vehicle is styled, not designed. Designing is done by CAD guys and engineers, styling is done by stylists, who have virtually no input to the engineering of the car. Greglocock 04:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You can blame that on me. Most of that was the result of my attempts to clear up the prose in the article. Your edits to the development and design were a big improvement to what I had done, which was (I believe) a lot better than the original. Horologium t-c 04:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Exports

"This further restricted exports, which were now available only in New Zealand and South Africa due to Ford Australia's decisions at the time." Pretty much wrong. Sorry no cites, but you should be very wary of any statement claiming that. If it is a Geoff Polites or Tom Gorman quote then I guess I'd have to go along with it. 09:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I too had suspicions about that remark, so I tagged it with {{Fact}}. I have now removed the entire sentence for you. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sales

Every Falcon article seems to claim that sales never recovered, or something like that. The same is true for Commodore, for the last 10 years, but for some reason the editors have tended not to put that into the first para of each Commodore article. The reason is that the large car market is shrinking, and that there is more competition. Greglocock 05:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I am interested to know which Falcon articles claim that sales never recovered. It should probably be reworded. What it could possibly say is that the Falcon no longer had the no. 1 sales position it enjoyed in pre-AU days, where it regularly outsold the Commodore. It should be talking about relative sales rather than absolute sales volumes. You can be assured there's no conspiracy against Falcon articles. VectorD 07:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this article could probably do with an entire section on its unusual piece-by-piece unveiling and subsequent market reaction, rather than just one sentence. VectorD 07:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Issues and Criticisim Claim

I have removed a claim that "once the Falcon has reached 170'000 kilometres, wear on the gearbox makes shifting more difficult" because cars do not wear straight after a mileage number. Cars will wear as much as you let them, and if you are careful a car can last on one gearbox for humdreds of thousands of kilometres. Harrison-HB4026 08:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Issues, Issues and Issues please settle down

Hello, I am Senators the creator of the Ford BA Falcon article. I single-handedly have contributed the most to this article and it is progressing very well. But I was very disturbed yesterday when I read that their was a big debate (if you want to call it that) about the problems or faults with the BA Falcon. Firstly I am worried that the "Issues and Criticisms" section may get to big. I like to enforce or remind that the "Issues and Criticisms" section must not get to big, many cars past or present have had problems in some way but we must remember that we are not here to criticize the BA Falcon in a large extent please prioritize was needs to be mentioned in the "Issues" section. A small section at the bottom of the article is relevant enough, not a massive paragraph.

If you have any more to say about this please go to my talk page, remember to keep it cool.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 00:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Woah, no one was suggesting that we do that, just that there was no mention of the vehicle's poor build quality. By no means was Greglocock and myself having a fierce debate, but rather a constructive argument regarding the below average build quality present in most Australian-made cars. In the end just one sentence about the issue was included in the article. [4] OSX (talk • contributions) 23:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. My basic position is that we should stop knocking current cars as there isn't much difference in reliability between them and people in other countries don't seem to waste time knocking their own products. Greglocock 00:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review comments

I think that the article has covered quite a lot of ground. There are 2 areas that needs attention before the article gets GA:

• Sales figures and sales life cycle details. Also, which model was promoted by Ford at the end of the BA Falcon (and Mark II)

• Awards won by the car is mentioned in the lead but nowhere else in the article. the lead is intended to summarize the main article and cannot have any new details not present in the article. please correct the same.

Please revert back after these comments are addressed. --Kalyan 12:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• - It is very hard to find the Sales figures for the BA Falcon.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 01:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sales data is available. The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries releases monthly as well as yearly sales data as FCAI VFACTS. Look around and you will find it. VectorD 02:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

10-4 thanks I will look for it.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 03:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

 Done Kalyan's issues with the article have since been resolved. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that there are still issues outside my GA comments that are being discussed. However, i think that this article has GA level content and hence the promotion. --Kalyan 10:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The 3500 rpm/mpg claim

(a) it is rubbish (b) it is very poorly written (c) it is very hard to tell what the writer's intent even is. It would need a cite at the very least. Greglocock 09:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Here it is in all its glory "Within days after launch, it was assumed that the extra weight would equate to second-rate fuel consumption. Conversely, real-world testing proved this was only true under heavy acceleration, exceeding 3500 revolutions per minute. ".

"Within days after launch,"

? what the hell does that have to do with anything? And why isn't it written in english?

" it was assumed"

?by whom?

" that the extra weight would equate to second-rate fuel consumption."

?please quantify first rate and second rate fuel consumption.

" Conversely, real-world testing proved this was only true under heavy acceleration, "

gosh you mean someone actually measured the fuel consumption under heavy acceleration, and published the result?

"exceeding 3500 revolutions per minute. "

and the same at high revs?

Sorry, it looks like complete tosh from beginning to end. Greglocock 11:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)