Talk:Audi V8/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Suri 100 (talk · contribs) 11:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing this article. I put the article on hold for following reasons:-

I strongly suggest that lead section should be expanded if possible. Also, in the lead section, it is written that audi won two titles which needs to be proved.

Further, ref no.11 is a broken link.

Status:- On hold. So i am keeping this article on hold for 7 days.

After these issues are addressed, i will further do review. Suri 100 (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section has been expanded, with the motorsport section receiving particular attention. As for ref 11, it works perfectly here, and the checklinks tool doesn't indicate a problem. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting the article for a second opinion as i have less expertise in dealing with the technicalities with this article. The article would be reviewed further soon. Suri 100 (talk) 06:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify the issue you need a second opinion on? Glad to offer one if I can. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khazar2, at this point, you might want to simply take over the review. Suri 100 (now named Suresh 5) hasn't responded despite almost two weeks having passed. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very pleased if you do, Khazar. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can do. The previous review doesn't appear very thorough so far, so I'll start from scratch. Detailed comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks to everybody for their work on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

Thanks for your patience in waiting for me to return. My overall impression is that this article does a good job of detailing the various parts of the Audi V8, but I don't believe the "main aspects" of the subject are yet covered as required by the GA criteria. There's almost no discussion of the car's development process, reception, sales, or role in Audi's history. The Audi V8's reception by reviewers, for example, is relevant and readily available in articles like this one. I'm also concerned with the quality of the sourcing throughout the article; most of the information appears to be sourced to self-published Audi fan sites, rather than reliable secondary sources. Other sources include a bulletin board thread and a user-submitted photograph, which clearly don't pass muster. The catalog numbers of various parts, in contrast, seem to me a level of detail unneeded for an encyclopedia article (a problem under criterion 3b). Some minor work should also be done for layout to address the large number of small sections.

Since the nominator doesn't appear to have edited the article yet aside from responding to the comment above, I'm going to close this review for now and suggest that more work be done before renomination. I'd start out by gathering reliable sources on the subject--how do publications like newspapers, magazines, or reference works describe the car? That will give this a stronger start. Thanks for your work on this so far, and good luck in rewriting and renominating it! Please let me know if you have any questions or if there's any other way I can offer assistance. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More detailed comments:

"Notably," -- should be cut as minor editorializing per WP:WTW
"Audi's famous quattro all wheel drive" -- "famous" should be cut as peacocking per WP:PEA
"The Audi V8 created a new elevated image for the company, providing a viable alternative to established competitors such as Mercedes-Benz.[8] In this regard, the car was a cornerstone in developing the history of the Audi marque as it is today.[8]" -- I'm not sure http://www.audiv8.com/ is enough of a reliable source to support these statements.
http://www.audistory.24max.de/old1/html/ed1.htm seems unlikely to be a reliable source
http://www.audifans.com/kb/V8_(model) seems unlikely to be a reliable source
Is http://www.traumautoarchiv.de/ a reliable source?
"These new designs would set the pattern for future Audi-developed Volkswagen Group V8 engines. As well as using an all-aluminum alloy for the cylinder block (when the established material was grey cast iron), the camshafts were driven using a hybrid method. A rubber/kevlar toothed timing belt, driven from the front of the crankshaft drives only the exhaust camshaft in each bank. The inlet camshafts are then driven via a simplex roller chain from the exhaust camshaft - the right bank, (cylinders 1-4) at the rear of the engine, and the left bank (cylinders 5-8) at the front of the engine, immediately behind the timing belt. This method effectively reduced the complexity of the timing belt layout (known to be very complex on DOHC V engines), and as a result, required fewer components (idler rollers and guides), leading to easier and less costly maintenance of the timing belt and associated components." -- this section seems to move from past to present tense to past again.
"Audi's now proven 'trademark' quattro " -- what do you mean by calling this a proven trademark? It sounds like POV language, but I may not be grasping the point.
"The rear axle final drive unit (parts code prefix: 017; identification codes: AFV, AXZ) " -- giving the parts code seems like extraneous detail here; this should be an overview of the car rather than a catalog.
"It is important to note though " -- should be deleted per WP:WTW
The subheaders under "Engines" aren't necessary, and should be deleted per WP:LAYOUT, which discourages short subsections. This could read as one three-paragraph section without any difficulty to the reader.
uploading pictures to verify a point, as at fn 17 (File:V8Quattro.JPG, is clearly original research. If the sources don't find it worth mentioning, it's probably not.
The subheaders under "Transmission" aren't necessary, per the above.
but mounted the caliper inside the disc - and often coined the phrase "UFO brakes" -- the prose gets extremely confusing here. The fronts mounted the caliper inside the disc, and the fronts often coined the phrase "UFO brakes"? I don't understand what this means.
I'm not clear what ""ronal sourced wheels" means--since this seems to be the only use of the phrase in all of Google, I wonder if there's an error here, or if a better phrase could be found.
"The Audi V8 came standard with a range of usually optional features, " -- does this part have a citation, or is this simply interpretation? -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]