Talk:Nissan Leaf/Archive 1

Archive 1

Batteries to be leased?

If this is confirmed, this should be noted in the article. This reference seems to say it came from the CEO's mouth, although he wasn't quoted: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=a0ohR8fNdxVw

See latest updates in the article. Batteries are included in the sale price.

New Jobs?

In the "Production" section is mention of the number of new job openings expected as a result of the U.S.production. I thought this article was about the car,not the politics.I notice that these cars will be built in England as well,but no mention of "new jobs" created there. Can we skip the PR stuff here please? 76.166.245.241 (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Batteries

I just erased the "Batteries" section because it was inaccurate and non-encyclopedic. It would be great to get some good, accurate, technical information on the battery pack in the article. Then we could reintroduce the section. Anyone? Ebikeguy (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why you erased that section.. it referenced http://www.nissan-zeroemission.com/EN/LEAF/specs.html showing the battery specs. I am re-adding some of that info cheers, Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.176.81 (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Battery price

The indicated battery price is considered to high even in the comments of the referenced article. There is no other source except The Wall Street Journal which confirm this value, but there are a set of other references which indicate that the original price of 9000$ is the actual one.Claw s (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead section should contain the most important information

According to wp:lead an article's intro should contain what makes it interesting.

"...explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies..."

I added the below text to the article:

Because the Leaf is an electric car it has the advantages of no tail pipe pollution, lessens dependence on oil, and cost advantages as the price of gas rises.

It was reverted because it was considered wp:or. I reverted it back. The text is referenced. Not sure what is thought to be original research, since it is referenced. The summary text says the references are about electric cars and not the leaf. Well since the leaf is an electric car then it applies to the leaf and is not OR. What do you think? Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the Nissan Leaf not EVs. That content is appropriate in the BEV article (which already says so), but when you take that general content and decide to apply it to the Leaf in particular it becomes your OR (on the contrary, if you find sources explicitly attributing this benefits to the Leaf, then it is not OR - and I bet you can find them, just Google a bit). Nevertheless, just imaging if we start adding summaries of the benefits of EVs, PHEVs, HEVs to each of the individual vehicle articles. If there is something unique or specific about the Leaf, then there is merit to add it here. See you around.-Mariordo (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

O.K. added specific reference that the Nissan Leaf is zero emissions: http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index.jsp. Thx, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Risk of exploding batteries in car accident?

Lithium ion batteries, like laptop batteries, can explode at high temperatures, and it is very dangerous because they can't be put out the same way normal fires are. Is there any word on how Nissan avoids this problem in their car, during an accident, or criticism for this problem?

128.100.71.45 (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This issue is dealt with both by modern battery chemistry, which prevents oxidization at the cathode, and by battery management systems which monitor system voltage, heat, etc. I need to recuse myself from this discussion for professional reasons, but I would be happy to point others in the right direction. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Gasoline tank fire or explosion is much more dangerous. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

lithium doesn't explode it ignites, but car lithium battery's are shielded better. also a tank of gas or other liquid fuels are 10 to 20 times more volatile, as Lithium only ignites when it comes into contact with air (heat only causes lithium to expand it, and sony's batteries were poorly produced) Markthemac (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

it's more likely u will choke on a pretzel while going over a speed bump and die (or sit in front of your TV, like G.W. Bush? who didn't die):(, than it is for a car battery to explode in a blazing ball of fire Markthemac (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Zero Emission

Zero Emission isn't possible, weird there is no criticism on this wiki (it reads like advertisement). all energy sources emit CO2 at one point (solar panels/wind mills to produce and maintain.). Markthemac (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Zero tail pipe emissions does not include greenhouse gas emissions, just the good old air pollution. Now, if the vehicle is recharged from a clean energy source, then it is an absolute zero emissions. For the time being, there is going to be a carbon footprint. Nevertheless, this is a subject already covered here, and valid for all electric-drive cars, so there is no need to discussed in every plug-in electric vehicle article, unless there is a specific issue related to a particular vehicle, otherwise we might incur in OR.-Mariordo (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: Just in case, I just added the Zero-emissions vehicle article to the See also section.-Mariordo (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If it is close to zero we don't worry about it. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It is nowhere near close to zero. I don't worry about it since GGE is a fad, as are EVs. But it is typical of the lies and POV that EV promoters use. I shall reedit the article accordingly. Greglocock (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That addition of information is fine with me as long as it is NPOV and from RS talking specifically about the Leaf (as per my explanation above). I think that a separate section, just like the ZEV article would be better. Please take into account that zero emissions are legally defined differently in California (ZEV standard) and the European Union. The former only considers tailpipe emissions (so EVs are classified as zero emissions) while the latter considers carbon equivalent emissions measured considering a well-to-wheel assessment, which will take into account how clean in the energy source. Only when recharged using wind or solar generated electricity would be considered zero emissions in the EU-Mariordo (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is OK, as it turns out, and the ZEV article covers the issue well enough. Daniel's comment on the other hand... Greglocock (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This article, sad to say, does read like an advert. The only criticism is concerning the cooloing or some such? I appreciate that general criticisms of electric vehicles may exist in one article, but if I come to an encyclopaedia, I do not expect to have to open several volumes at once to be able to cross reference certain relevant aspects.82.6.1.85 (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Lance T.

Auto dealers are among the least trusted industry groups. So stretching the facts goes with the territory I guess. http://www.marketingcharts.com/direct/better-business-bureau-trust-in-biz-down-in-13-of-15-industries-5766/bbb-gallup-industries-least-trusted-2008jpg/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe2832 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

lithium batteries alone emit a few tons of CO2 to produce and they only last 4 to 8 years and u can't recycle them 100%, also shipping cars/shipping batteries maintaining all add CO2 Markthemac (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

when this car is shipped and in your street it has already emitted more CO2 than a natural-gas powered car will in 4 years Markthemac (talk) 02:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That is precisely what a "well-to-wheel" assessment does, account for all emissions and compares them with the well-to-wheel emissions of a conventional internal combustion engine car.-Mariordo (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

than this page is biased towards america, as global regulations basically state it isn't Zero Emission. Markthemac (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The "Zero Emissions" is a Label for the vehicle. They don't stick that label on the manufacturing plant, nor do they put that on the power outlet in your garage.

The word Emit (from Emissions) is an action verb. Just because that action had a cause that required emissions from another separate and external source, and has an effect that will enable future emissions from another separate and external source... DOES NOT mean that the original labeled object "emits". Joeviocoe (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

For example, is my left eye "Zero Emissions"? Technically yes. But if you want to keep digging into the past and future of my left eye beyond the reasonable understanding of the label "zero emissions", then No. My left eye has muscles and blinks regularly. It can only move and blink because my brain tells it to do so. The energy to move and blink come from protein and enzymes. The brain is the most important source of signals to move and to receive the optical signals back from the eye. All this requires an aerobic metabolism. Which requires oxygen to be consumed, and carbon dioxide to be emitted. Furthermore, my eye enables me to find food for consumption, which will be the cause of further emissions. Not only CO2, but Methane as well.Joeviocoe (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Bottom line.... everything could be considered as having SOME emissions. So the term, "Zero Emissions" would have no meaning. But since it does have a reasonable meaning, which is based on collective human understanding that the term is given ONLY to the object of which it is labeled. There is a limit on how far you can take cause and effect. If you want to go beyond the vehicle's label of Zero Emissions, you MUST note that by using the term Well-to-Wheels. That term exist for that very purpose.Joeviocoe (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Highway range...

70 miles at 55mph... so that's maybe 50 miles at the speeds people will actually be driving? The figures for anything higher than that are conspicuously absent... 193.63.174.10 (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, should be considered a city vehicle. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Units

Regarding units, metric measurements should be used over imperial as this is a Japanese car, and not an American one. As it stands, the article uses kilowatts (metric) as the primary unit for power, and miles (imperial) as the primary distance measurement. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Kilowatts are the standard unit of measure for power when dealing with electric vehicles and other electrical devices. In America, miles are the standard unit of distance. The units should remain as written. Ebikeguy (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, this is not an American car, it is/will be sold globally. By convention, we use imperial measurements first for vehicles designed in the United States (and in Australia and the United Kingdom prior to metrification). So for the Volt article, imperial measurements should be given precedence. Every country uses metric units except Burma, Liberia, and the United States. This car is Japanese, and Japan exclusively uses metric measurements.

Per WP:UNITS: "Avoid mixing systems of measurement used for primary measures". OSX (talk • contributions) 06:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is in the final stage of GA evaluation. The reviewer unfortunately did not created the specific page for the discussion. He left his feedback in my Talk page here. I will appreciate you positive feedback to close the GA process asap because as you both are aware, I am on vacation and my time on the air is limited.-Mariordo (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You folks must come to a resolution to this issue, to say the least. If not, I will have no choice but to quick-fail this GA nomination per criterion #5 (there must not be any ongoing content disputes or edit wars). –MuZemike 06:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Imperial units are appropriate if the vehicle was made in the US, or sold only in the US, or made/sold in certain other countries before they went metric. None of these apply to the Leaf, so metric is the most appropriate system of units. Ebikeguy's argument seems to be 'Americans use miles, therefore everybody must use miles'. Since his is the only argument for using imperial and time is of the essence, we should go ahead with using metric. As a courtesy, we can use the convert template to show imperial units in parentheses (ie a secondary system of units but not the primary). Note that the template should always use the unit given in the source material as its input (ie miles if comming from a US source) but metric can still be shown first by using ' |disp=flip' in the template. E.g. {{Convert|80|km}} to give '80 km (50 mi)' and {{Convert|50|mi}} to also give '80 km (50 mi)'. Cheers.  Stepho  (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Stepho-wrs, your contribution was very helpful. If nobody else objects I will start changing units to metric and using the flip parameter where the source is American (like EPA), which was my main concern about doing a overall unit change. Please feel free to collaborate, as I am under time constraints and I do not believe I will have time to convert everything. Also, if there are no objections I will only keep one unit in imperial system, the miles per gallon equivalent since to the best of my knowledge this a proxy unit only used by the US EPA and US DoE, though I will add the conversion to metric system. Any help is welcome to complete the improvements so the article achieves GA status.-Mariordo (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems with metric units and imperial conversions. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of templates where the flip parameter does not work: {{Convert|96|to|110|mi}} and {{Convert|38|mph}} with disp=table parameter. Any other tips? The latter I prefer to leave as it is because the testing was performed in the US with imperial units (so this would be another exception) and anyway the table is showing all values in both systems.-Mariordo (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, with the exceptions mentioned above. Feel free to complete or modify anything I might have missed (or resolve the template issues identified above).-Mariordo (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have made a request to fix the way the units are being displayed when the "|disp=flip" parameter is being utilised, but please do not let this get in the way of the good article nomination, as this is an issue that needs to be addressed in the {{convert}} template.

Also, Mariordo, I agree with the exception to display the EPA figures in MPG as the primary unit. Doing otherwise would be misleading and confusing. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

See my comments on the convert talk page for workarounds for the disp=flip parameter.  Stepho  (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, the issue has now been resolved (thank you Wikid77). OSX (talk • contributions) 21:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nissan Leaf/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –MuZemike 19:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Just to let you know I went ahead and combined a few paragraphs in as a logical way possible so that the prose looks more professional and presentable. If something is out of place as a result, feel free to split back apart. In general, you should try to aim for writing full paragraphs of prose - somewhere between 4 and 9 sentences length.
• Please update the facts and figures. Some of these events are described in the future tense which should have already happened (it's the end of 2010 for all intents and purposes).

Prose issues

• See WP:PLUSING; there are a few instances of "noun plus '-ing'" that should be elminated. (Obviously, stuff like "EPA city driving cycle" cannot possibly be avoided, so use common sense.)

Issues resolved

Not all the print sources are italicized, such as Time. That includes in the citations. Can you explain or point to me the rule for italicization?--Mariordo (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Actually, it's a basic grammar rule. –MuZemike 18:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC) I am sorry, but English is a second language to me, so I am not aware of such rule. I though that the citation template "cite web" or "cite news" did the trick automatically (the former not italicized, the latter italicized). I understand from your comment that print sources must be italicized, but a lot of them come from the web (i.e. New York Times or The Economist content not always is from the print edition), so I appreciate if you can provide a bit more guidance in how to proceed. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Ah, yes. You would need to manually italicize if you are using {{cite web}}, that I know for sure. I know when using {{cite journal}} that is automatically italicized as you said. Anyways, if the publication is available in print as well as online (such as with The New York Times) then you would italicize the publication. –MuZemike 20:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Completed.--Mariordo (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC) I know the {{cite news}} template has a "newspaper" parameter which automatically italicizes; I also believe the same with the "magazine" parameter in the {{cite journal}} template. Just for future reference. –MuZemike 21:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC) [1] - please go through the links that are in red and fix those dead links. All red links fixed.--Mariordo (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC) All dead links were updated or substituted.-Mariordo (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Check again at the very bottom of the list: Refs #84 and #126 still show Yahoo! 404 errors :) –MuZemike 02:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC) OK, now Ref #36 ([2]) is a 404. –MuZemike 01:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC) With all the shuffling, it is now Ref #32. Probably the server was down, I have no problem reaching the content for that url.--Mariordo (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC) OK, now I see it. It must going on and off. –MuZemike 19:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Usage of percents are inconsistent; sometimes you spell out "percent", and other times you use the "%" symbol. Please stick to one consistent usage throughout the article. Done, selected % -Mariordo (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC) "LEAF" or "Leaf"? Please stick to one usage (except in the lead) throughout the article. Done-Mariordo (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC) In the lead: According to the manufacturer,... per gallon gasoline equivalent. I recommend splitting that sentence into two smaller statements. Fixed, as explained below the range according to the manufacturer was removed to have a clearer prose.-Mariordo (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC) In the lead: it has the advantages of,... as the price of gasoline rises. - improper construction of a series; it reads: It has..., reduces..., and its total cost.... That final item should either start with a verb, or you could also restructure that sentence so that it makes more sense grammatically. Done. Complete re-write of the last paragraph (see more details below under "Lead")-Mariordo (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC) "Battery pack" subsection: The pack does not intrude into the rear trunk space. - That sentence seems out of place there. I would think there would be a way to combine that into the previous sentence so that there is some context provided. Done. This content was OR (so I removed it/I searched comprehensively with Google) and only left content with RS that I provided.--Mariordo (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC) "Netherlands" subsection: Leaf buyers will also have access ... without which a car cannot be purchased. - too long and drawn-out a sentence; recommend splitting that one as well. Done.--Mariordo (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC) "United Kingdom" subsection: The Leaf will go on sale ... in January 2011. - recommend a split, preferably at the including the 20% VAT part. Done, deleted unnecessary content.--Mariordo (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC) "Price, tax credits and other incentives" subsection (under "United States"): Additionally, Nissan will offer ... installed by AeroVironment. - sounds rather wordy after reading that sentence. I recommend tweaking it, so that it reads/flows a bit better than it currently does. Done and updated to present tense.--Mariordo (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability issues

Issues resolved

(Note that in the article prose, I have added appropriate tags in the article that are either unsourced, with {{Citation needed}}, or are not in the citation(s) given, with {{Failed verification}}) From the rewrite, in the "Technology" subsection, the first two sentences are not in the citation given, which I have appropriately tagged. At this point, I'm not terribly worried much about the first sentence (as it's more introductory) as I am with that second sentence. Fixed: actually I updated and expanded this content, and made it compatible with the remaining of this paragraph.--Mariordo (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Ref #61 [3] → do you have a better URL for that, such as directly from CNET? I ask because something like that would be a more stable URL than a YouTube link uploaded by some random user. Done, I found the url from CNET.--Mariordo (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Lead Specs in the infobox (i.e. wheelbase, length, etc.) needs to be sourced; but if something in the infobox is already mentioned in the prose, then there is no need to cite it in the infobox. Done.--Mariordo (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Very first sentence in the lead, not in the citations given. You need to provide a source verifying that's what "LEAF" stands for (not hard to find one), as well as the facts that it's a five-door hatchback (electric car is obvious enough). Done.-Mariordo (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC) According to the manufacturer, the Leaf's all-electric range is 100 miles (160 km) in city driving, - the citation given says "96 to 110 miles", and it doesn't mention its range while in the city. Unless there was something I missed in the other citation [4], I am not seeing the verification of this. The rest of that paragraph is verified, by the way. Done, removed from the lead for clarity. Same content is on the main body properly referenced.-Mariordo (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC) ...and will be followed by Japan on December 20. (source: [5]) - Not in the citation given. Nothing is given in that source about the Leaf's December 20 release in Japan. Done. I updated the ref but since the date is in the past I updated the content, now schedule "by the end of the month" -Mariordo (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC) ...with global market availability planned for 2012. - Not in either of the citations given. Everything else is verified in that second citation but not in the first (I would personally remove that first citation as it seems out-of-date and conflicting with that second citation). Done as you suggested.--Mariordo (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reduces the need to import oil and enhances energy security, (source: [6]) - This is iffy. I mean, you can imply that "transitioning away from oil" is fairly equivalent to "reducing the need to import oil", but I am not sure you can link this source to "increasing energy security" and hence may be venturing into OR. I'm open to interpretation on this, however. Fixed. I agree with your interpretation (there was a brief discussion about this several months ago). This paragraph is in the borderline of OR due to synthesis of sources, and there is no need to repeat in detail the benefits of EVs in every EV article. I did a complete re-write, change all the sources (as some were not so RS) and added two new RSs that avoid the synthesis issue. Completed the paragraph size with one other of the awards won by the Leaf.-Mariordo (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC) New version looks good and verified. –MuZemike 02:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC) EV-11 prototype History That first half of the paragraph The EV-11 prototype electric car ... through Nissan's secure data center to the car. is not sourced, but it looks like it's on one of the sources further in that paragraph, mainly Nissan's press release here. I believe this is now fixed with the re-write I did of the new History section--Mariordo (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Specifications Ref #42 [7] cannot be found. Make sure you have the URL right on that one. Done, restored with existing source but I removed content not supported by RS.--Mariordo (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Ref #35 [8] is also not found. I did access it without problem.--Mariordo (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC) You would be right. Perhaps the website was temporarily down or something :) –MuZemike 20:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Most of the second paragraph in the "Connected mobility" subsection is not in that citation given (source: [9]) from what I can read in that article. Price and sales Market Very first sentence (Nissan officially introduced the Leaf in a ceremony held at its global headquarters in Yokohama on December 3, 2010.) is unsourced. Done, it was just missing from my previous edit.--Mariordo (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC) ...(SL trim; totaling US$12,564) with an initial payment of US$1,999. - not in either of the citations given Fixed and extended from Nissan official site as RS (the purchase price for the SL trim is a couple of paragraphs below +$940, I kept only the basic price at first for clarity). The US$12,564 was just arithmetic (349x36) but on a second thought I removed it.--Mariordo (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC) I verified it now, but you may want to change the URL to [10] (if that does not present a problem with accessibility, as I had to enaable JavaScript in order to view it). –MuZemike 01:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC) I do not like that page either, but the problem is that all RS I checked with Google do not present the pricing for both trims, and actually are talking about the basic model price without specifying the trim (good marketing by Nissan). Even in Nissan's LEAF Facebook page ([11]) pricing is highlighted for the SV trim and the leasing price of the SL trim is not shown, just says it costs $940 more. I will keep looking after I am done with the other changes.-Mariordo (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Nissan sells and leases ... to reduce the price of the car. - not in the citation given. I removed The battery included stuff because this old edit was based on speculation (from non RS - blogs) before the official price announcement.--Mariordo (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC) These areas were selected because they are home to the EV Project, which was awarded US$99.8 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - not in the citations given Done. I remove that content since such detail is unnecessary and the link to EV Project provides the details with proper RS.--Mariordo (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Partnerships The entire second sentence is not in the citations given. Fixed. Actually most of the content referred to Better Place, not relevant for this article and effectively not supported by the sources. I removed most of it and kept only the relevant Leaf material supported by the two RSs.--Mariordo (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Production up to 11,210 charging stations in strategic markets in Phoenix (AZ), Tucson (AZ), San Diego (CA), Portland (OR), Eugene (OR), Salem (OR), Corvallis (OR), Seattle (WA), Nashville (TN), Knoxville (TN) and Chattanooga (TN). - not in the citations given. Moreover, that figure is also incorrect and likely out-of-date, mainly because that first citation links to the main page of that website, which constantly changes. I recommend finding a more stable page with a more stable figure. The content was moved from the first page to another page (hopefully more stable, but I will keep an eye on it) on the same website. It is now fixed and updated (you were right, more cities and more financing was granted by DoE).--Mariordo (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC) OK, it's verified, but you may want to change the formatting of the cities as it looks like it has been copied directly from the source; I mean, reformat it so that it looks like the list of cities in the other places in the article. –MuZemike 01:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Done!--Mariordo (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Marketing Other stops on the tour included Berkeley, California; San Francisco; Seattle; Vancouver; Las Vegas; Houston; Washington, D.C.; and Orlando. - not all the cities are listed in the citations given. Done, move the existing sources to the corresponding content and added the missing RS.--Mariordo (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC) I also removed Berkeley, which was the only city not in there. –MuZemike 21:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible plagiarism

Issues resolved

its lifespan depends on how often (440-volt) fast charging is used and on environmental factors such as extreme hot weather, which is tough on the battery. → That is a little too close to what is in the source [12]. Please paraphrase that ASAP. Please check to confirm it is OK now.-Mariordo (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Looks better. –MuZemike 02:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Nissan is giving Leaf customers the option of buying a home charging station at an estimated cost, including installation, of US$2,200, is directly purloined from the source [13]. Fixed and updated (the tax credit was due to expire on 2010/12/31 and was extended under different conditions). Please check to confirm it is OK.--Mariordo (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC) The EV Project will collect and analyze data to characterize vehicle use in diverse topographic and climatic conditions, evaluate the effectiveness of charge infrastructure, and conduct trials of various revenue systems for commercial and public charge infrastructure. - ripped off from [14] Fixed and updated (with existing source on a different url/not Edmunds).--Mariordo (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Image issues

Issues resolved

Per MOS:CAPTION, captions that are incomplete sentences do not have end-punctuation at the end. Please correct those captions. Fixed. -- Mariordo (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Actually, you forgot a few. Please double-check. –MuZemike 02:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Done with some re-write. End-punctuation left only in captions with a verb (full sentence).--Mariordo (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC) You still missed four other ones, but I got them for you. –MuZemike 19:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Layout issues

Issues resolved
The "Criticism" and "Consumer Reports" subsections don't exactly fit under the "Marketing" section. Perhaps a separate "Reception" section would be better for those two? A better idea would be to combine those two sections plus the "Awards and recognitions" section into one "Reception section". Done by OSX.--Mariordo (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Other suggestions

(Note, this does not count against the GA review but may help for further improvements.)

• You may want to remove the citations in the lead by following the WP:LEADCITE guideline. This reduces clutter in the lead and help hook in readers better. In a nutshell, make sure everything in the lead is mentioned in the article body and is sourced there, then you are free to remove the citations in the lead as they would be considered redundant.

I agree that it would be better to remove the citations. Nevertheless, if you check the article's history you will see that because of the novelty of the Leaf and all the hype around the first mass market electric car, there has been a lot of one-time editors that from time to time make bold/unreferenced edits. This problem was significantly reduced after I fully referenced the lead, so in order to avoid this problem from reappearing, I believe it is better for the time being to keep the citations, at least until the initial hype dies down.--Mariordo (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I mean, I'm not going to push it that hard, but I know should you decide to nominate for FAC in the future, you may get reviewers there who will demand a "clean lead" (i.e. without citations). –MuZemike 21:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Specifications" section: You have text that is sandwiched on both sides with images, which goes against MOS:IMAGE. As far as GA is concerned, you can get away with it, but you will get bit at FAC for stuff like this.

Fixed. -- Mariordo (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Conclusions

In progress – Currently going through a "verification sweep" of the content, making sure everything reflects what the sources say. –MuZemike 19:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comment References must not go on the WP:LEAD. Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 20:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Hi MuZemike. As you are probably aware I am on vacation so I have been a bit slow in attending your requests. Furtunately OSX jump in to lend a hand. This is to let you know that due to my time constrainst and a second GA that began today (see Talk:Plug-in electric vehicle/GA1) I have requested assistance form other editors from WP:CARS to contribute in completing the changes (see my request here). Until more editors show up, I will slowly continue making changes beginning with missing refs and dead links since I know the article very well and some of them are elsewhere in the article. I also want to let you know that if at some point I would have to give up a nomination it will be the other article, so please don't stop your excellent review.--Mariordo (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. Take your time and enjoy your vacation. If necessary, we can put the nomination on hold until you have the time to respond to any issues which only you can respond. –MuZemike 01:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding.--Mariordo (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

On hold – That pretty much completes the GA review. Barring any period of time in which you will be away, I normally give about 1 week to correct the issues noted above. –MuZemike 03:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Just remember that those issues that I have crossed out mean that they have now been adequately addressed. Please pay attention to all of the ones that are not yet crossed out, including the ones in which I have provided additional comments. –MuZemike 01:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. Did you check the "Layout issues" section? It is done.--Mariordo (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Passed. I'm not going to worry much about the WP:PLUSING at this point, but you may want to read that and make appropriate corrections whenever you get a chance. Otherwise, great job, given your circumstances and that this was a fairly long article on a fairly new product. –MuZemike 21:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, it was good working with you. I did some of the WP:plusing anyway (see the temporary reversal I did, but I restored your last changes). Thanks again, particularly for your understanding of my time constraints.-Mariordo (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions by OSX

Mariordo, I have completely rearranged the contents of the article. Very little content was removed, except (from memory) two of the less-notable awards in the reception section. Please let me know if you approve of these major changes before I make any major revisions to the prose (again, I have only touched a few sentences here and there). The actual content is near identical to when you last edited the article.

When you have the time, it would be good to expand on the "design" section as it is currently only a single paragraph. Just about all of the information in the development section is devoted to the powertrain and mechanicals. An expanded design section (including the interior) would be great. The actual body of the Leaf is quite an unusual design with its front-mounted charge point in lieu of a front grille, and the rear-end styling is like no other car around. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the rearrangement looks really good – at least certainly along the lines of what I was thinking. –MuZemike 07:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. In addition to the revised layout, the consolidation of section headings also makes everything a bit more readable, and the table of contents now no longer overwhelms the article. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Car size

Do we believe car manufacturer or EPA?? Or is EPA the official classifier of car sizes in USA? How is other cars classified?-->Typ932 ^T·C 19:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Since as you correctly pointed out, the apparent contridiction between the manufacturer initial announcement and the EPA formal classification affects other cars, I believe it is more appropriate to continue the discussion of this issue in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles here. Once consensus is reached this and other articles can be modified and make consistent accordingly to the consensus. And yes, it is EPA that officially decides based on interior volume (see details in the linked discussion).-Mariordo (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I also have concerns about adopting the EPA car size classification for vehicles that are also sold in international markets (outside the U.S.A.). According to EPA, the vehicle's ' Size Class system groups passenger cars according to interior volume '. AFAIK, the EPA interior volume is the sum of passenger volume and luggage volume. Furthermore, the result of EPA's classification can be confusing and far from what is perceived in the market place.

For example: (from fueleconomy.gov)

Vehicle / Passenger vol. / Luggage vol. (cu.ft.) / EPA classification

Nissan Leaf 90 / 23 / mid-size

Nissan Versa 94 / 14 / mid-size

Honda Fit 91 / 21 / small station wagons

Ford Fiesta 85 / 12 / sub-compact cars

2012 Hyundai Accent 90 / 14 / compact cars

2012 Ford Focus 90 / 13 / compact cars

From above, vehicles with 90 cu. ft. passenger room is clasified by EPA as mid-size car(nissan Leaf), compact carss(Hyundai Accent & Ford Focus) and small station wagons(Honda Fit). However, I think many would consider the Nissan Versa, Honda Fit, Ford Fiesta and Hyundai Accent within the same class. I think it is confusing (especially to those not familiar with the U.S. classification) and can be misleading to use EPA's classification as the final arbiter. As a result, I temporary remove it. -North wiki (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Plural

Leafs or Leaves? The Yowser (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It is actually LEAF (an acronym as stated on the page), so it would be LEAF's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.237.116 (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Pricing

Why oh why is there so much pricing listed on this page? Especially the Japan and North America section seem nothing more than long harangues of numbers. As for the EPA "gas mileage" equivalents, this information is going to be of relevance to many articles and should definitely have its own page rather than taking up space on this one (and possibly other electric car pages, I haven't checked).  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

True. Pricing will also change over time, so I don't see any value in describing pricing other than maybe citing the original retail price in the table and that's it, instead of explaining it over and over for each country...Net price even with incentives actually does not change, government tax credit only applies to certain income levels (those that pay over 7500 in taxes) and is more of a marketing technique than actual relevant information on the vehicle itself. Tax incentives go into effect at tax time, not during purchase. So it actually does NOT change the retail price at time of purchase, unless they've changed how federal tax credits work recently. If someone wants to explain how the LEAF works with tax breaks, maybe it should be under fed tax breaks page, not under the LEAF page, or under an electric car page that get it, since it applies to all of them in that category.

The article government incentives for plug-in electric vehicles was created precisely with the purpose of having the details of tax incentives and subsidies separate, with an international perspective, and for any PEV, precisely to avoid explaining the nitty gritty in each vehicle article. For example, for the Leaf in California you get the $7,500 federal tax that you recover only after filling your annual taxes, but there is a $5,000 rebate that applies on the point of purchase. Next year this rebate goes down to $2,500. So it is not that simple and the schemes are different for each country. So by having links in each country sub-section to the proper section in the article about PEV incentives (as the article does now) any reader can jump to the country of their interest. Now it seems logical to have the MSRP price together with the incentives.

In a more general context, prices are relevant for electric car and plug-in hybrid articles because of the hefty premium consumers pay (essentially due to the high cost of the battery - $10K to $15K?). Now, if we want to keep the article with an international scope, we have to have more pricing info and not just the main markets (the US and Japan today). The other factor to consider is that the Leaf and the other PEVs, all are being launch with limited numbers and limited markets. I believe that after the Leaf has global availability and supply (production) is enough to satisfy demand, then probably that will be the right time to trim that content and just leave a summary pricing table with a link to the incentive's article. Also, as the article evolves I agree that a lot of that stuff could end up eventually in a new article about the history of the vehicle, particularly if battery prices effectively go down as many pundits are predicting and also as the technology improves. I foresee the article will then more like the Prius article looks today, a summary of sales by country per year and maybe a pricing table for the main markets, and hopefully, a more detailed explanation on how the powertrain works. There is not much available (at least in English) today, and not as much as there is info and technical coverage about the Chevy Volt. I believe that now the priority should be to expand the content regarding the inner workings of the Leaf.--Mariordo (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Solar panel

"The small solar panel on the Leaf rear spoiler (only on the SL trim in the United States) helps to charge this accessory battery." This is ambiguous. Does it mean that the solar panel is only available in the US and even there it is only for the SL trim? Or does it mean that within the US it is only available on the SL trim and that we are not specifying what the rest of the world gets? Also, the reference doesn't mention the US or SL trim restriction.  Stepho  talk  22:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Good question. Perhaps it should read (in the United States comes only on the SL trim). I don't know about trim levels in other countries. Note: I added this phrase under my IP address before I got a login name.Stoater P (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The text is much clearer now.  Stepho  talk  01:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Broken Web Reference in Nissan Leaf Article - Wikipedia Policy?

The Nissan Leaf Article has a reference with a broken web link. What, if anything, is done when a Wikipedia article has a reference to a web article that is no longer available? Does one try to find a web reference with the same information which is still "live", or just leave everything alone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoater P (talk • contribs) 17:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

First you google to see if it is still available in other location from the same url or from another website. Type the title, that usually works. If not available at other location, there is a tag for "dead link" to flag the problem, but the citation is kept. Alternatively you can support the same content from another reliable sourece.--Mariordo (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will have a look at replacing the reference. Found a replacement for one broken link, but then ran across another broken link.Stoater P (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I installed the Link Checker, a link validator Firefox extension and checked the Nissan Leaf article. The Link Checker found the following references to have broken links: 4, 6, 127, 144 (possibly broken), 168, 198. I fixed 127, which I put in a few days ago and messed up. I will have a look at the others if I get a chance, or someone else can check on them.Stoater P (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

All broken references fixed except 4 and 6. Stoater P (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

All broken references should be fixed now. Stoater P (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Would like to let you know ref 70 is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.215.115 (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Launch States (United States - Sales and regional launches)

In the sub-section Sales and regional launches (of United States):

" ... more than 55% of the reservations were from its primary launch markets in California, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, and Tennessee.[139][140] ... The reservation process first reopened in the launch states of Arizona, California, Hawaii, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas and Washington.

... Nissan initially limited Leaf sales to California, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, and Tennessee. These areas were selected because ... "

Which are the 'launch states'? From the above, it seems there are different 'sets' of launch states, is that true? Is it necessary to repeat the individual launch states three times within a short sub-section? --North wiki (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The inconsistency originates from Nissan, apparently the launch states went from 5 to 7 (Hawaii and Texas added later). I will take the opportunity of updating the release markets of the 2012 Leaf to simplify a bit based on what actually happened and the next launch markets.--Mariordo (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Overlinking currency

There is a huge problem with overlinking currency symbols in the article. Every time a currency is used it's linked. They should only be linked once, if ever. JIMp _talk·cont 00:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Since I put most of them in, I'll take the blame as well. Unfortunately your solution of reverting them all back to simple text is a bit too harsh. The main reason the templates were put in was because different editors were doing things like $10, US$10, US $10, US$ 10, USD10, USD 10, USD$10, 10 US dollars, United States $10 and many others. The templates brought consistency. However, I do agree that the linking is excessive. The solution is to add |link=no to the templates - although in the case of {{USD}} it already defaults to 'no'.  Stepho  talk  02:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

So it does ... sorry. I was confused since the others seem to default to yes (or whatever the opposite of no might be). It would make sense if they all were consistent though ... but that's a discussion for another talk page. Meanwhile, yes, let's add |link=no. JIMp _talk·cont 00:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Good, I think we are agreed: |link=no in the short term and changing the defaults on all the currency templates to no linking in the long term. I will work on them in my spare time. Cheers.  Stepho  talk  00:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at my proposal. JIMp _talk·cont 01:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Turtle Mode?

If it's not an official term (though the dash does have a turtle icon, so it's close), it is at least used commonly. Shouldn't the article make mention of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.84.138 (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Image first US Nissan Leaf

As referenced by the article with reliable sources, the first Leaf delivery in the U.S. took place on December 11, 2010 at North Bay Nissan of Petaluma. See here andhere the actual pics of the first Leaf delivered (color black). The two images shown below were taken just two days later, on December 13. If you follow the flickr link, you can confirm that the pictures were taken in San Mateo, SF Bay Area. The guy who took these pictures was not aware of the Leaf's launch (I call his attention and requested a license change to uploaded at Wiki Commons). You can see in the first pic that the dealer plate is from North Bay Nissan of Petaluma (exactly the same design), the car's color is black, and there was only one Nissan delivered in Northen California at the time. Nissan made this big events for the delivery of the first vehicle in the each of the first launch markets (as explained and referenced in the article).

• 
  Plate from Petaluma Northbay Nissan dealer
• 
  Same car on the freeway

Therefore, I think there is no doubt this is an actual pic of the first Leaf delivered in the US. I am aware this is an unorthodox way to sustain this claim, so please comment below if this evidence is good enough, or not, to meet Wikipedia standards. Once consensus is reached we can remove or keep the claim from the caption. Please write your thoughts on this issue below:

• I believe there is enough evidence to support that this is the firs Leaf delivered in the US.--Mariordo (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I see your arguments. Please consider, though, that what you are doing (in your explanation here) is synthesizing (i.e., this is original research) to circularly support your "belief." But there is no notable, reputable source cited in the article for the claim that this is the first Leaf. The reader is asked to believe... you. This makes what is already a bit of hyperbole — irrelevant fancruft in the context of an encyclopedia — even more specious. 842U (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

842U, the rules that apply to images uploaded in the Commons are different, and with the exception of public domain images such as those of the U.S. government, uploaded images are not supported by reliable sources but heavily depend on the description provided by the author. In this particular case the license plate number would have provide such proof, but the car was still using a dealer plate (as shown in the copyrighted images from the reliable sources, check the San Francisco Chronicle, if you click on view larger images in ref #165, this pic shows the same dealer plate). If we want absolute proof, I only can think of asking Mr. Olivier Chalouhi, the first Leaf owner in the U.S. I would like to hear what other regular editors, and particularly those familiar with image disputes from WP:AUTO. Let me clarify that it doesn't make much difference to me if the caption states this is the first U.S. Leaf delivered, but the image might have historical value in the future. So, let's wait for other to express their views on this issue.--Mariordo (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

As purely a photo illustrating a Nissan Leaf, the angles are undesirable and the photos blurry. So unless it's identified as illustrating a particularly important/interesting Leaf, there wouldn't be a reason to include it over any number of available photos that better show what the car looks like. (Note that I've been asked to weigh in only on the photo, not on whether there is enough information to say that this is the first delivered Leaf.) IFCAR (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with IFCAR - I am glad that the picture exists with a free license, and see no real need to question whether it is indeed the first delivery. However, I don't agree that its being that very car is of enough importance to justify including the photo(s) in the article. It's of enough interest to keep it in the Commons, but that's it for me.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. The image of the first United States delivered Leaf is important, but this is not justification to include it in the article in lieu of better quality images (if available). If the first Leaf was unique in some way, such as a being painted in one-off colour or sporting special decals then obviously this would not apply. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 01:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

resource

• http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/automobiles/nissan-leafs-true-believers-wont-leave-well-enough-alone.html

97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This part was interesting to me ...

... glitch that annoys many Leaf owners: a battery-charge gauge that is notoriously untrustworthy. This dashboard readout can mislead drivers into believing that the battery pack is about to run out of juice when in fact there are plenty of miles left in the electricity tank.

99.119.131.17 (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Mechanical signal to battery

The airbag control unit sends a signal mechanically to the battery and disconnects the high voltage from the vehicle.

This is copied from the reference but does anybody know if this means the signal is sent by shifting a rod? Or does it really mean an electrical signal is sent to a device which then mechanically disconnects the battery terminals? Contactors are often employed as electrical safety devices in situations like this.  Stepho  talk  04:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

My best guess is this is not done mechanically by the airbag control unit.---Now wiki (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

NYT page B1

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/business/tsunami-reveals-durability-of-nissans-leaf.html by Nick Bunkley Tsunami Reveals Durability of Nissan's Leaf published December 21, 2011, reported from Detroit "Nissan inadvertently gained some valuable insight into the durability of ..."

97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent range information

The opening paragraph states "The US Environmental Protection Agency official range is 117 kilometres (73 mi), with an energy consumption of 765 kilojoules per kilometre (34 kW·h/100 mi) "

If the official energy consumption ( presumably over some standard testing cycle ) is 34 kWh/100 miles, and the battery capacity is only 24 kWh ( and you can't actually use all of that ), then how are predicted ranges in excess of 100 miles possible or credible ? How can you get at least 34 kWh out of a 24 kWh battery? If there is a logical explanation for this, then somebody should write one.122.106.205.74 (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

My guess is non-aggressive driving style, regenerative braking under appropriate conditions, mild weather, level terrain, all can help extend the optimal range of a BEV.---Now wiki (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

U.S.

In the article, just precedes the table of sales by year, states: "The following table presents retail sales by year". In the U.S. auto industry, auto sales consist of retail sales and fleet sales. It may lead readers to think that fleet sales are not included in the table. I think the sale number from Nissan Motor North America is the total sales - which includes both retail sales and fleet sales. As a result, I changed it to total sales.---Now wiki (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Feature Comparision

I think it would be useful to have a chart similar to the price chart by country that lists the features of the various versions of the Leaf. IE SV versus SL in the USA. The lack of carwings in NZ, etc. Is this feasible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conzar (talk • contribs) 00:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Markets

The sales data for The Netherlands was incorrect. The stated number of 180 could not be derived from the provided references. The RAI data show cumulative sales of 294 over 2011 and 130 over the first six months of 2012, for a grand total of 424. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.253.227 (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I checked and it seems the RAI updated the figures, with significant changes for 2011. Other models such us the Volt/Ampera and i-MiEV family also had minor adjustments, so I will update/correct those too.--Mariordo (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Contradictory information re warning sounds.

"The driver can turn off sounds temporarily through a switch inside the vehicle, but the system automatically resets to "On" at the next ignition cycle."

But in the next paragraph,

"The Leaf's electric warning sound had to be removed for cars delivered in the U.K., as the country's law mandates that any hazard warning sound must be capable of being disabled between 11:00 pm and 6:00 am, and the Leaf's audible warning system does not allow for such temporary deactivation."

Which is correct? It is possible to temporarily turn off the sound, according to one, but they were removed according to the other because it wasn't. --StarChaser Tyger (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The temporary-off information all seems to have US or Japan based references but may apply to most of the world. The no-sounds information is listed as particular to the UK. I interpret it to mean that in most markets the warning sounds are available but can be temporarily disabled. However, for the UK market in particular, the sounds are disabled altogether due to a conflict with UK laws.  Stepho  talk  22:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Warranty

The article states that the warranty in the USA is 8 years. In the UK it is 5 years. I suggest it would be worth compiling about warranty length for a variety of markets to give the reader a better understanding of this key aspect. Can anyone else contribute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul freund (talk • contribs) 16:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Battery capacity loss controversy

Before more OR is introduced or edits lacking NPOV, the following sources provide enough coverage to update the Arizona Leafs battery capacity loss controversy:

• http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/09/williams-20120919.html
• http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1079343_nissan-suggests-leaf-battery-capacity-loss-due-to-high-miles-exclusive
• http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1079475_nissan-buys-back-leaf-electric-cars-under-arizona-lemon-law
• http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/nissan-aims-to-improve-communication-with-leaf-owners/?ref=automobiles

Please feel free to go ahead and make this edit. If nobody lifts the gauntlet, I will do the edit tomorrow. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I corrected some of the information on the Phoenix range test last September. I was there and helped Tony and the local LEAF drivers with the event.--Surfingslovak (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I added a few links to the MyNissanLeaf.com discussion page and the associated wiki page that goes into further detail regarding the topic and tracks real world reports of the issue at hand. Although GreenCarCongress is well known source of information, it is a blog nonetheless and frequently relies on information pulled directly from Leaf owners writing on MNL. Both SurfingSlovak and Tony Williams have contributed directly to the collective knowledge of the MNL "Battery Loss" discussion with NPOV information. Joeviocoe (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

2013 model

I'm confused by what is meant by '2013 model'. My understanding of the US system is that the '2013 model' was introduced around Aug/Sept/Oct 2012 and is sold until about Aug/Sept/Oct 2013 (ie the model year specifies the end date). Whereas for most of the world the '2013 model' means a car that was introduced somewhere in calendar year 2013 (typically about now). So is the Leaf '2013 model' the model that was introduced in the middle of calendar year 2012 or 2013?  Stepho  talk  02:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stepho. Nissan introduced the 2013 model between March and June 2013 in all markets, and began announcing the changes in November 2012. This is one case in which the American year model and the international model coincide. As for how the year model is used and introduced is quite inconsistent, I have seem next year models introduced as early as January (Accord plug-in is 2014) or March (Ford Fusion Hybrid was 2010 in March 2009). I hope this clarifies your doubts. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Roewe e50

It has brought to my attention that there is a car called the Roewe e50 in China. It is essentially a copy of the Nissan Leaf. I believe that it should be mentioned in the article. Please read the article and leave me a message on my talk page to discuss this. Thank you.--67.54.187.155 (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. This statement was since removed from the article. Sorry.--67.54.187.155 (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

CHAdeMO Charging

There are several references to 480V, 125A and 44kW. It seems to be based on citation 7 about the charging station Nissan sells. However, that information is particular to that charging station. The CHAdeMO standard allows for charging vehicles with battery packs up to 500V and at a rate of 125A for a total power of 62.5kW.

Citation 33 is closer to the correct answer regarding the details of the Leaf listing 440V as the charging voltage. I have worked on fast charging stations and Nissan Leafs and the Leaf has a maximum battery voltage of 435V and a target charging voltage of 410V. Following the CHAdeMO standard a charging station will never charge the battery above 410V. I will look for a reference to those charging voltages for the Leaf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PwrEng (talk • contribs) 21:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

New fuel cell technology for the Leaf

Nissan announces development of the world’s first SOFC-powered vehicle system that runs on bio-ethanol electric power. Where could we put the subject ? --Robertiki (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this subject. In this case Nissan is just announcing its ethanol reformer fuel cell technology, but no announcement has been made about commercialization of a FCV Leaf, so I don't think the article about the Nissan Leaf is the right place to deal with this. In addition, the subject is already presented in the fuel cell vehicle article in an specific section here. This section needs updating since the recent testing that began in Brazil with a Nissan e-NV200 with SOFC prototype is missing. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 04:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Carsalesbase.com

There's a discussion of the source carsalesbase.com at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Carsalesbase.com. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Community reassessment

Nissan Leaf

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: This article no longer meets good article status on the grounds that it is too long and contains numerous issues with poor sourcing.Challenger.rebecca (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Article has grown far too large

• The current version of this article has grown to 17,522 words (readable prose, excluding infoboxes, captions, etc). The version that was assessed as GA back in 2010 was only 5,062 words. There is no hard and fast rule, but Wikipedia:Article size says that when an article reaches 50kb readable prose, it's about time to consider splitting or pruning. This beast has grown to more than double that, 104kb.

Note that article size is not a GA criterion, but an excessively large artilce can have problems with criteria 1 Well written (prose is clear and concise, complies with MOS), 3b (staying focused) and 4 Neutrality, giving due weight. The obvious issues here are poor organization, such as the battery discussion in multiple places, and excessive detail. There is a great deal of consumer guide style analysis of costs that is not likely to belong in an encyclopedia. None of the FAs about cars are anywhere near this large, but are in the 6k to 7k word range. Many GAs about cars are only 2,000-3,000 words, and none of them exceed 7,000 words. Holden Commodore is the longest one, a car made for almost 40 years, and it's only 6,800 words.

I have to ask again: Why is this article so long? What is special about this topic? The Mitsubishi i-MiEV electric car is only 6,600 words. What's the reason? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Partial list of other issues

This article would fail GA based on its size alone. It doesn't make sense to asses the problems in all 17,522 words since the GA version of this article would have closer to 5,000 words. Once it's down to a reasonable size, then a detailed assessment would be worthwhile. Here is a partial list of some of the issues with the current version, just to get a sense of how much work needs to be done to get this back to GA quality:

• Grammar and punctuation errors:
  • "With the 24 kWh electric vehicle battery (total capacity; usable battery capacity is about 21.3 kWh[34][35]) it consists of 48 modules and each module contains four battery cells, a total of 192 cells, and is assembled by Automotive Energy Supply Corporation (AESC) – a joint venture between Nissan, NEC and NEC Energy Devices, at Zama, Japan"
  • "Nissan stated in 2015 that until then only 0.01 percent of batteries, produced since 2010, had to be replaced because of failures or problems and then only because of externally inflicted damage."
  • "(In the United States models, only comes with SL trim.[49])"
• Repetitive reference to 10 year life span "The battery pack is expected to retain 70–80% of its capacity after 10 years but its actual lifespan depends on how often DC fast charging (480 volts DC) is used and also on driving patterns and environmental factors.[33][41] Nissan said the battery will lose capacity gradually over time but it expects a lifespan of over 10 years under normal use". "Is expected to last 10 years" and "Nissan expects a lifespan of over 10 years". Which is it?
• Overlinking United States, United States Environmental Protection Agency, battery pack, model year, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, United Kingdom
• Promotional language:
  • "Some vehicles have already covered more than 200,000 km (120,000 miles) with no battery problems" The fact that some exceed the expected average is normal; that's where averages come from.
  • Most of the paragraph on battery life is sourced to Nissan's claims rather than independent sources.
  • A list of bullet points devoted to Nissan's advice for battery maintenance
  • Buried at the end of the section, only two sentences spent on evidence that the batteries are not quite as good as initially claimed. This should be rewritten giving more prominent placement to contrary views, and most of the content should come from the assessment of independent experts, not Nissan's claims.
  • Wikipedia's voice argues against the critics of the battery: "Nissan reported that in Europe only 3 of 35,000 Leaf batteries had failed."
  • Costs of battery pack are given. WP:NOPRICES requires reasons why we are including street prices, such as comparison with similar products and reasons why these prices are of special interest. Same goes for prices of battery replacement program.
  • Also contains a list of prices by country, again without justification per WP:NOPRICES.
  • Further down, a section on battery issues is forked off from the main battery section. It cites crowdsourced information. Why do we introduce the topic of battery failure in the first battery section, and don't mention that this is incomplete, and that we are going to revisit it in depth later? Wouldn't it make more sense to consolidate everything about the batteries under one heading, so that the positive claims can be set directly against the negative criticisms, and the defenses of the criticisms? Forking different points of view from one another is poor style, and not considered neutral.
• WP:WEASEL, WP:EDITORIAL, WP:ALLEGED: "It is notable...", "actually", "claimed", "However" --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• comment I've split off the market/sales section into a different article. It's messed up the refs in both places, but the referencing bot should hopefully sort that out soon. The length is down to just over 50k readable prose now.GliderMaven (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• That's a good start, but it's hard to believe that you could take a 17,500 words article, and quickly chop off 8,000 words from a single section, and have the result still be a Good Article, if it was to begin with. The basic questions are: why are some sections of this article so incredibly long? The development section is a brief two paragraphs, then the Specifications section runs to over 5,000 words, although I think that's a mistake. There's sub sections on range for each iteration, and a sections on operating cost, Total cost of ownership, payback time etc, that don't belong under Specifications. It hasn't been thought out at all. Why don't any other car articles break the fuel economy section down into 3 sub-sections on operating cost, total cost of ownership, and payback time?

  I'll note again that large swaths of this excessive detail only cite Nissan as the source. No article should devote so much space to paraphrasing product press releases. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Further notes

• Development history
  • Run on sentence "Nissan also developed the Nissan Hypermini, ran a demonstration program and sold limited numbers for government and corporate fleets in Japan between 1999 and 2001"
  • Very long and confusing sentence. Which one included an 80 kW electric motor? Does the US EPA have a "driving cycle, navigation system, and remote control and monitoring via a cellphone"? Or does the car (is it the EV-11 or the Tilda?) have an 80 kw motor, 24kw battery, a navigation system, remote control, and monitoring? "Unveiled in 2009, the EV-11 prototype electric car was based on the Nissan Tiida (Versa in North America), but with the conventional gasoline engine replaced with an all-electric drivetrain, and included an 80 kW (110 hp)/280 N·m (210 lb·ft) electric motor, 24 kWh lithium-ion battery pack rated to have a range of 175 km (109 miles) on the United States Environmental Protection Agency's LA-4 or "city" driving cycle, navigation system, and remote control and monitoring via a cellphone connection through Nissan's secure data center to the car'"
  • The source here is described as "Abuelsamid, Sam (2009-07-27). "Nissan shows off new Versa-based electric vehicle prototype". In fact, it is simply a copy of a Nissan press release [15].
  • "Goodwin, Antuan (2009-04-02). "Test-driving the Nissan EV-02 electric car". cnet. Retrieved 2010-04-25." sounds like an objective review, but in fact none of the test drive is in this article. It's just another collection of statements from a Nissan marketing guy.
  • Two of the five different sources in this paragraph are press releases, though only one is marked correctly.
  • The Development section is too short, and lacking in substantive details, instead favoring a list of advertised features that Nissan chose to tout. What do independent experts say about the development history of this car? What about it's intended market niche? It's goals? Did Nissan want to profit off this car? Burnish it's green image? Develop new technology? Why did they develop it? Were there problems during development? Such a long article but it's lacking in important details.

• Battery replacement program
• this source (Blanco, Sebastian (2013-06-20). "Nissan Leaf battery replacement will cost $100/month, offers new pack at any time". AutoblogGreen) is a preliminary announcement of the program, which is short on the final details of how it would work. We devote a whole paragraph to the June 2013 version of this program, then add another paragraph that traces the development of it to the June 2014 version. How important is it to devote space to every detail of the program, including incremental versions of it?
• The Blanco source above does point out that the existence of battery replacement is a "change of heart from Nissan", an admission that their original lofty claims about their batteries were overoptimistic. Why was Nissan wrong about their batteries? How did it affect the business model of the Leaf? How did car owners feel about this? Did they think it was a bait and switch? This is a topic we should cover more here.
• We have a forked off "reported issues" section below that tackles all this in depth, but why do we leave the reader hanging with these questions? While a criticism type section is allowed, the essay WP:CSECTION makes a strong case that a better organization is to integrate the issues in context. So battery problems go with the battery section. Now we have broken chronology: 1) Nissan rolls out the car promising batteries that last 10+ years. 2)consumer complaints, controversy, lawsuits 3) battery replacement program 3.5) what was the reaction to that anyway? 4) class action settlement. Besides the reasons for integration in WP:CSECTION, simple chronology argues for telling the battery story once, in one place.
  • Since this article has a bloat problem, we also want to avoid redundancy when possible. When you have to tackle the battery in 3+ different sections, and you're telling the events out of order, you have to do some review to keep the reader up to speed. This article can't afford to waste space on review and repetition.
  • I expect this issue is going to come up again and again. Most components of this car are covered in the same way as the battery, out of order, and in multiple sections. So the need to consolidate applies everywhere, not just the battery. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's great that you are taking a detailed look at an old Good Article, but I think you're looking for the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. That is for reassessing articles that are currently listed as Good Articles but may not meet the criteria anymore. The nomination process is for evaluating articles which are not currently listed as Good Articles. Knope7 (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not the least bit surprised that I have failed to follow your 1,000 bureaucratic rules to perfection. Pretty sure that's about par. The point is, this article hasn't been anywhere close to GA status for years. (And the editor most responsible for driving it away from GA status has reverted everybody else's edits on the grounds that it's a GA!)

But I can't just say, "Hey, GA people, fix this" because they will always say, "No, too busy." So I'm doing it myself. Obviously that doesn't meet whatever byzantine hoops are required, but I'm pretty sure the outcome is the same.

This thing needs to be delisted. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Moving from GAN to GAR and listing as a community reassessment per discussion at User talk:Dennis Bratland. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments etc from others

Comment: The references are not in very good shape:

• The following references are dead or seem to be dead: #93, #83, #70, #66, #60, #69
• These can't be found: #30, #5, #65, #16
• These require registration/subscription: #116, #88
• This one can't be found: #6

So, not sure that GA Criteria 2A is being fulfilled in this case. Also...the SIZE of this article - it's insane! If you printed it out this article would come to 40 pages! I think it needs to heavily-edited and then what's left could possibly be split into sub-articles. Shearonink (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Nissan Leaf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131125214325/http://nissanqc.com/products to http://www.nissanqc.com/products
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081123035247/http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=1702 to http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=1702
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101125134723/http://www.nissan-zeroemission.com/EN/LEAF/specs.html to http://www.nissan-zeroemission.com/EN/LEAF/specs.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101125134723/http://www.nissan-zeroemission.com/EN/LEAF/specs.html to http://www.nissan-zeroemission.com/EN/LEAF/specs.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110809215015/http://newsroom.nissan-europe.com/media/articles/html/75281_1_9.aspx to http://newsroom.nissan-europe.com/media/articles/html/75281_1_9.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120320/AUTO01/203200342/1148/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140302031302/http://www.automotivescience.com/press/4582462907 to http://www.automotivescience.com/press/4582462907
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110914130150/http://www.nissan.ie/NissanLeaf/NissanLeafScience/news_details.aspx?id=1203 to http://www.nissan.ie/NissanLeaf/NissanLeafScience/news_details.aspx?id=1203
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110324125352/http://www.whatcar.com/car-news/nissan-leaf-deliveries-start-in-uk/256080 to http://www.whatcar.com/car-news/nissan-leaf-deliveries-start-in-uk/256080
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110505035016/http://www.nissaninthenews.com/nissan-leaf-hits-the-road-in-the-netherlands/ to http://www.nissaninthenews.com/nissan-leaf-hits-the-road-in-the-netherlands/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324062801/http://www.nissaninthenews.com/first-nissan-leaf-ev-arrives-in-canada/ to http://www.nissaninthenews.com/first-nissan-leaf-ev-arrives-in-canada/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207090813/http://gronnbil.no/nyheter/eventyrlig-elbilsalg-i-2011-article218-239.html to http://gronnbil.no/nyheter/eventyrlig-elbilsalg-i-2011-article218-239.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.themanufacturer.com/uk/content/12747/European_Investment_Bank_invests_in_Nissan's_LEAF_car
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140719141342/http://www.elbil.no/nyheter/statistikk/3158-7882-nye-elbiler-registrert-i-2013 to http://www.elbil.no/nyheter/statistikk/3158-7882-nye-elbiler-registrert-i-2013
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150417090248/http://www.kba.de/DE/Presse/Presseportal/N_Segmente_Modellreihen_FZ11/N_Segmente2014/n_seg_12_14_pdf.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2 to https://www.kba.de/DE/Presse/Presseportal/N_Segmente_Modellreihen_FZ11/N_Segmente2014/n_seg_12_14_pdf.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160110095609/http://www.kba.de/DE/Presse/Presseportal/N_Segmente_Modellreihen_FZ11/n_seg_12_15_pdf.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3 to https://www.kba.de/DE/Presse/Presseportal/N_Segmente_Modellreihen_FZ11/n_seg_12_15_pdf.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150112014446/http://www.raivereniging.nl/artikel/marktinformatie/actuele-verkoopcijfers/verkoopstatistieken.html to http://www.raivereniging.nl/artikel/marktinformatie/actuele-verkoopcijfers/verkoopstatistieken.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100201005421/http://www.greencar.com/articles/nissan-leaf-electric-car-wins-2010-green-car-vision-award.php to http://www.greencar.com/articles/nissan-leaf-electric-car-wins-2010-green-car-vision-award.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110303151005/http://greenercars.org/Green%20Book%202011%20Press%20FINAL.pdf to http://www.greenercars.org/Green%20Book%202011%20Press%20FINAL.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100311193109/http://www.hybridcars.com/incentives-laws/us-tax-incentives-plug-hybrids-and-electric-cars.html to http://www.hybridcars.com/incentives-laws/us-tax-incentives-plug-hybrids-and-electric-cars.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a discussion

This is to invite regular editors of this page to participate in the ongoing discussion at the talk page of the electric car article regarding Wikipedia policy about pricing info included in several articles dealing with plug-in electric cars. You are welcome to express your view. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Article is out of date.

Leaf 2 launch in late 2018, very little coverage. - User talk:Ocdcntx

Late 2018? The second generation was launched in October 2017, not 2018. However, feel free to add any details you want - as long as they have supporting references. We can help you with any fine points of Wiki markup.  Stepho  talk  00:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)