Talk:Sunbeam Rapier

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Engine query

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following query was left on the main article by an anonymous user at IP 202.173.128.90 on 14th September 2006:

Apparently the rootes group before the chrysler takeover built some prototype 1969 rapier fastbacks with the 289 ford v8.true or false?

Quite unlikely, but not impossible. The Chrysler connection was well established quite sometime before 1969, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Rootes did not experiment with other engines, particularly as the Sunbeam Tiger used a Ford V8. Eagleash (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Pressed Steel?

The article says the Series I bodies were produced by Pressed Steel Company. Is this right? Logic would suggest this ought to be British Light Steel Pressings, the Rootes Group pressings plant and neighbour of Thrupp & Maberly in Acton. Is it not more likely the bodies were made by BLSP and shipped next door to Thrupp & Mabberly before going to Ryton? 20:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Templates making the article illegible

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I don't know who put all the "weasel words", "by whom?" and "citation needed" templates in this article, but they acted really stupid. It makes the article a real pain to read, what with all these "weasel words" notes. Please, let the weasels out of this, this is only an article about a car, not a highly controversial topic!

If the guy who did this thought he was working to improve the encyclopedic standards of the article, he seems to have forgotten that articles are made for readers, too.

193.253.141.65 (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

True, it's a bit off-putting, but the article does read very much like a (very light) re-hash of this. Eagleash (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have tried to edit the article to have fewer of the "requests" & thus read in a more encyclopedic manner, & also to add refs. where possible. However, a number of refs. are to the very article which was quoted (unreferenced) extensively in the Wiki page previously. Happy to hear from anyone with better refs. or to discuss page further. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Add topic