Wikipedia:Peer review/Mazda Cosmo/archive1

Mazda Cosmo

I think that this article is very good, and on its way to becoming featured, I just need some ideas on how to improve it. --Karrmann

This article is coming along, but there are a few issues that should be resolved before you start on the rigorous Featured Article process.

1. Inline referencing. One of the primary reasons to object is the article lack's of inline referencing. Though the references section is definitely better than many articles, it is almost necessary that they be inline; you can see how at Wikipedia:Inline Citation. It is encouraged you use the style set out at meta:cite. This is simply a way for us to double-check and prove that the article is factually accurate and prove that our claims and numbers can be sourced, per Wikipedia:Verifiability.
2. Comprehensiveness. Another featured article criteria is requires our work to be comprehensive. We dont want to just know about the production of the car itself. What was the industry reaction, and did it affect any other companies and car models? Is there a little history you can provide about the cultural impact and history of this vehicle in regards to its market? Can we see some pricing information? There are a number of good featured articles about cars right now. I believe that the most recent one to pass, though a bit more eccentric, was the De Lorean DMC-12. Other featured articles include Ford Mustang, Volkswagen Type 2, and Mercedes-Benz 450SEL 6.9, though some of these were featured a long time ago when criteria were less stringent.
3. Brilliant prose. Another criteria is that "the prose is compelling, even brilliant." This article seems very fractured to me. The writing is, admittedly, a little on the dry side, and it is interspersed with short sentences and lists. See Wikipedia:How to write a great article and Wikipedia:The perfect article for some good advice.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you need another pair of eyes on this article before you begin the Featured Article process. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 23:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I echo Rebelguys2's comments about inlining the referencing, comprehensiveness and prose. I'd also add:

1. More Human Interest: Who designed the car? Who pursuaded management to build it? Who was passionate about it? What market was it intended to attack and why? What races did it win? What awards did it get? Was it profitable? How many were made? How did it stack up against it's competition? Why did they eventually discontinue it? What notable people drove them? What did the reviewers have to say about them?
2. Infobox: The wheelbase and length type stuff that's embedded in the article can go into the Infobox. Also, I don't think you're using the standard automotive template...although I could be wrong about that. The photo is normally the first thing in the infobox.
3. More Infobox: There are quite a few fields in the standard automotive infobox that you've missed out - it's sometimes hard to fill them all in - but in view of standardization, it's a good idea to try.
4. Better Photo's: Somehow the photos seem kinda bleaugh - some photos of the car out on the open road - the showroom pictures are rather sterile...I know this may be hard to fix. The photo of the green car is rather small - when I open it so see it better, it's hardly any larger than the thumbnail.
5. Redlinks: The two redlinks in the 1990-1995 section could definitely point to real articles - I'm just about certain there are articles about in-car nav systems and touch-screens - it's just a matter of doing a search to track them down.

Not a bad start though - you seem to have most of the technical stuff in there - it just needs some more human-interest stuff to make it a compelling read. SteveBaker 00:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)