Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Plug-in hybrid/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Joelr31 02:26, 4 March 2009 [1].

Plug-in hybrid

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: Mac, Fbagatelleblack, Jack Rosebro, WP AUTOS.

Needs cleanup; it has citation needed tags and an expansion tag. I also think that there are problems with regards to criterion 4, in particular the History section; it isn't excessively long, but it doesn't seem to provide completely relevant information to the reader, it seems to be an indiscriminate list of events that are somewhat relevant of the topic without much connection to each other (proseline). Many of the inline citations are not formatted, and most troubling, many of those sources are of questionable reliability. Also, the Organization section lacks references and should probably be converted to prose. Some of the subsections are a bit stubby to me. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The History section is in WP:SUMMARY style and chronological order (as prose, not a list or "proseline" -- which I believe to be a poorly-defined term the case of summary-style chronological history sections) with less-important details relegated to History of plug-in hybrids. This issue has been raised before, but there have been no ideas forthcoming about how to address it with improvements. Do you have any specific ideas about how you would fix the History section?
The Organization section has been converted to prose, as requested. The expansion tag is, I believe, not a defect and is encouraged even in featured content to help point editors to where the article can most reasonably expanded, but I deleted it anyway. All of the citation needed, citation formatting, and source issues occurred after the FA promotion, of course, and the source issues which are specifically called out here have been addressed. All of the citation needed tags have been properly fixed, a dead link has been patched from a WP:CONVENIENCE archive, and all of the bare URL references have been reformatted.
Which subsections do you find the most stubby? 69.228.201.125 (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the proseline, perhaps it would look better if some of the one- and two-sentence paragraphs were combined. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried that, and I agree. It allowed for the deletion of several redundant years in dates. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much better. I will try to find a copy-editor, and post more comments here later today. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


FA should be revoked. It fails to meet FA standards.
(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; FAIL
(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; OK
(c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate; FAIL uses at least one non RS as a ref
(d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias NOT TOO BAD
(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. POSSIBLE PASS Greglocock (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have specific problems with the prose; if so, can you please suggest how you would improve it? The reference reliability issues which Dabomb87 lists below have been addressed. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Greglocock: Please see the FAR instructions; in the FAR stage, "possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies." As 69.228 has requested, specific issues would be helpful. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I'll look at the prose after the tech stuff is finished.Greglocock (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The section on the PG&E tariff has been re-written. Can we get figures for the VW Golf TwinDrive instead of whichever plug-in SUV they used to come up with those gas price numbers? 69.228.80.150 (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet, can we use User:CanExplain's suggestion for how to compare with petroleum prices? 69.228.197.195 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing

A non-exhaustive list of sources of questionable reliability:

This was a troubling source per Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Business and Commerce because while on one hand it is an email authored by the founder of the California Cars Initiative (a nonprofit organization) who is a recognized and widely-published authority on the topic, it is also clearly a book recommendation and thus an ad (for someone whose views on foreign policy have been called in to question by himself -- but that should have no bearing on his views on environmental policy.) This reference is being used to support the fact that carbon dioxide contributes to global warming. There have been arguments over this assertion before, so I supplemented the email describing the less reliable but more generally lay-accessible source with a reference to a peer-reviewed academic journal article. I also put the book citation first in front of the email review link inside the reference. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will leave this unstruck for other reviewers to look at. Since it is supported by a journal, I suppose it can stay. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boschert's book is better than Friedman's for this reference. 69.228.197.195 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an absolutely irreplacible historical document, used in the History section, originally sourced to a 1969 Popular Science article and fully meets or exceeds the criteria for primary sources in Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#History -- but it is also a secondary news report of the 800 car GM XP-883 concept fleet. The blog link is merely for WP:CONVENIENCE to our readers so that they might view the the primary and secondary source. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the convenience link itself should be reliable, as per WP:CONVENIENCE: "In cases where an editor reads only an "intermediate source" such as an on-line copy of a print publication, the editor should cite the intermediate source, but may also mention the original source. In such a case, the intermediate source must itself be reliable." Dabomb87 (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That ref has been returned to its form during initial FA passage, with an access date added. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is used thirteen times, going back to articles from 2005 to the very recent. As a news source, it has an experienced editorial and seperate publishing/commercial staff, the Editor holding a graduate degree in journalism from the Medill School at Northwestern. Per WP:RS, it is and has always been a reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Nobody in my memory has ever called its reliability, independence, fact-checking, or accuracy into question. As such, it does not suffer from the drawbacks described in Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Business and commerce and should be accepted as a primary source per Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#History. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, having a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I'm going only on the Editor's Medill School graduate degree when I suggest, per Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches#Responding to queries about reliable sources, that he must be, "a member of the press with a reputation for reliability." Also I found several press citations with a web search, such as this from a major newspaper business writer. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that should work, although another would be nice. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC) OK, this does the trick: http://www.greenpresswire.com/cgi-bin/press.pl?record=22. Striking. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google News says this is another although I haven't personally breached the subscription wall on that particular article, it is certainly an insider trade publication ("AutomotiveWorld.com has been delivering accurate, insightful and timely information to professionals working in the global automotive industry for more than 15 years."[2]) 69.228.201.125 (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for catching that; the Lutz quotation is now sourced to Naughton, K. (December 31, 2007) "Bob Lutz: The Man Who Revived the Electric Car" Newsweek. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another excellent catch! http://motortorque.askaprice.com/news/auto-0801/toyota-announces-plugin-hybrid-by-2010.asp has been superseded by Ohnsman, A. (August 28, 2008) "Toyota Plans Electric Car, Earlier Plug-In Prius Test" Bloomberg, which was already cited in the article's introduction. There are no other instances of "askaprice.com" in the wikitext. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was replaced by California Air Resources Board (March 27, 2008) "ARB passes new ZEV amendment - Measure could produce 65,000 cleaner vehicles by 2012" (government agency release) as a primary historical source in the History section. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has no link to that URL. We link to http://www.nicecarcompany.co.uk/go-electric-says-gordon-brown.html to document the Brown statement and http://www.nicecarcompany.co.uk/plug-in-hybrids-and-battery-electric-vehicles.html for the Leape quote. Are either of those uses troubling? I replaced the latter with http://www.panda.org/index.cfm?uNewsID=129321 which seems to be the primary source for the quotation in question. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was the base URL, not the specific page. Struck the latter, may need to scrutinize more later. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced and struck the former with number10.gov.uk source from 2007. 69.228.80.150 (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As done as possible, pending answers to my boldfaced questions from the reviewers. All of the specific issues raised were addressed, along with other sourcing, formating, and a few related issues. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work 69.228! I'm glad that this article, which is of considerable relevance in this day and age, is undergoing improvement. I still have questions about some more sources. In addition, all web citations should have a publisher and last access date. Now that some of the technical issues have been cleaned up, it is time that we find a copy-editor, because the prose needs some cleaning. As you request, I will be back with more specific issues and replies after I look at the rest of my watchlisted items and take care of something in real life. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will certainly add access dates and publishers. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Intro down, 22 sections to go. 69.228.80.150 (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the access dates, you can put down today's date; the access dates are there so that if a link goes dead, we know when the last time it was live so that we can replace the link with one from the Web Archive from that date. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying you checked that all the links worked today? 69.228.80.150 (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything that works does not show up here (only the links with red background are dead). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so are there any objections to repeatedly stating January 8 for default access dates? I guess I'll try some and see how it looks. 69.228.197.195 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is this? 69.228.197.195 (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, because then readers won't know when the article was last accessed. Other purpose of access dates is that readers know how long ago the article was updated with that information. Putting the hidden comment up there makes it hard for other editors to find the access date, they won't expect it to be there. If you don't mind, I can put in the access dates; I have a script that eases the job a bit. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do; I will remove the comment. 69.228.215.76 (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we trim the External links section? It seems that some of those links could be used as reliable sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, "Groups promoting plug-ins" should merge into "Organizations," and "News" has always been kind of a holding pen for things that should be written up in "History" or it's main article, but haven't been yet. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done with blue-sided ambox to suggest expansion at future production. 69.228.197.195 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Duplication and globalization
  • There are now three places where "plug-in hybrids that are planned or in production" are listed - the intro, "History", and "Production and commercialization". I think any announcements about future cars isn't really the level of detail History should have, that should be merged into "Future production". -- Beland (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Public Law 110-343 is mentioned three times, sometimes I think under the wrong name. Perhaps this and the California regulations should be consolidated in one place like "Government support". Not sure that needs to be under "History". I added a "globalize" tag because I'm sure there are other countries not mentioned which also have subsidies or relevant policies. -- Beland (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Compare to BYD F3DM#Principles of operation's section on modes of operation, which needs Anglisization to be in En. 69.228.197.195 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, MOS, and prose. Joelito (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So I started to clean up the references, but then I encountered a far larger problem: there is no consistent cite format. Some references are formatted manually, others use the cite XXX family ({{cite web}} and {{cite news}}), yet others use the {{citation}} template. The first thing that needs to be settled on is which citation format should be used. The second thing is the addition of ref information and making sure that all sources are reliable, the latter of which is the most important. The last thing is the actual formatting, which can be done given time. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does criteria 2c require that the wikitext be the same "family"? Can I just upgrade the bare URLs and refs without publisher information instead, please? 69.228.195.86 (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, publisher information is required. As I said, I can do all that, but we need to settle on a consistent format and make sure that all sources are reliable. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, which format is easiest to convert them all to? 69.228.195.86 (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cite XXX templates, since many of the references are in that format already. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but if the proposed time frame for completion is anything less than a couple months, I would like to see some evidence that criteria 2c has in the past required conformance of wikitext formats instead of the traditional footnote/Harvard distinction. 69.228.195.86 (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As long as work is being done, the director will let the FAR stay live. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "required conformance of wikitext formats instead of the traditional footnote/Harvard distinction". Dabomb87 (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the text of featured article criteria 2c. 69.228.216.60 (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More source reliability issues:

On which aspect of reliability is this source being questioned? 76.254.84.5 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it currently sources this statement: "Design issues and trade-offs against battery life, capacity, heat dissipation, weight, costs, and safety need to be solved." Dabomb87 (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that statement being challenged? It doesn't seem controversial to me. Assuming that someone thinks that the design issues don't need to be solved, which aspect of reliability is in question? 69.228.86.219 (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it an accepted fact in this area that these problems need to be solved? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen a suggestion that the problems do not need to be solved in any source anywhere near the reliability of the MIT Technology Review. 69.228.216.60 (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will let this one go for now, but I won't strike just yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to see if I can get it in web.archive.org or a more reliable live link. 76.254.84.5 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if I can find it. 76.254.84.5 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I need to review this. 76.254.84.5 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll try to find another report of the same press release, or the original release. 76.254.84.5 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there special dispensation towards howstuffworks.com and about.com in the reliable source criteria, somewhere? I think there was at one time. Maybe on WP:RSN or its archives. I'll look for that and try to address all of these. 76.254.84.5 (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
about.com covered here. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite long, some more trivial points, such as "Greg Hanssen and Peter Nortman of EnergyCS[118] and EDrive[119] attended the two-day session, and during a break in the proceedings, made an impromptu display in the LADWP parking lot of their converted Prius plug-in hybrid." could be removed without loss to the article. I also think the wiktionary links can be removed.

There is a little swapping between " x miles (y km)" and "y km (x mi)"; perhaps stick to miles first? The "smog" section could possibly be merged into the "greenhouse gas emissions" section; "operating costs" with "fuel efficiency"; and "Energy resilience and petroleum displacement" with "Vehicle-to-grid electricity". The sentence "has now taken over where Calcars left off..." is missing a word.

As the "greenhouse gas emissions" and "Emissions shifted to electric plants" sections cover the same ground, I would take them out of the "Advantages" and "Disadvantages" sections and merge them into a new section covering these issues outwith the advantages and disadvantages.

The "external links" and "see also" sections should be trimmed. Only the most relevant links should be given. DrKiernan (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove Comments not addressed. Indeed, since my review more trivia appears to have been added as there is now a list of converters which consists mostly of red links. DrKiernan (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, agree with DrKiernan (talk · contribs), also there are major sourcing issues and structural/organizational issues. Cirt (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demote - Since Obama and the bailout bill thrust plug-ins back into the public light as a matter of national political interest and debate, it's been essentially impossible to keep the article as stable as required by criteria 1(e), and I expect that such stability will become more and more difficult as federal orders and manufacturer bailout negotiations bring new models into production. The demands of some FAR commentary are difficult to see as entirely in good faith, as well. The article should be re-considered for FA status after more models are in production, but in the mean time it seems to meet the GA criteria. 76.254.86.42 (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Plug-in_hybrid/archive1&oldid=275558286"