Talk:Mitsubishi i

An entry from Mitsubishi i appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 11 August, 2006.

Wikipedia

Fuel consumption

Here http://media.mitsubishi-motors.com/lineup/e/carspec61.html I see that fuel consumption is 5.4/100 in 10-15 mode - what this means?

As per the above link, I've put a {{citation needed}} tag beside the fuel economy claims, as it appears the official figures don't meet the 3-litre standard. -- DeLarge 21:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

thats beacause only the concept version had a 3l/100km fuel economy with a different engine 1.0l and a Start-Stop-System. The production version of i has 660cc engine without the Start-Stop-System. This article is mostly about the concept version.--195.210.231.61 13:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The Smart Connection?

I remember hearing or reading that the i does actually carry some elements (perhaps the engine) taken from Smart Fortwo, as a leftover from the DCX control over the development of the car. There was even some speculation whether the car could be made in Hambach for Europe. Am I the only one who heard that? Bravada, talk - 12:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, doesn't look like it, if the Smart Fortwo page is accurate ~ it gives the engine sizes as 600 & 700cc. Also, the link in this article to the Green Car Congress report says that the engines were new powerplants developed by MMC in 2003.

Are you maybe thinking of the Smart Forfour and Mitsubishi Colt? They're the same basic car underneath. --DeLarge 13:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a possibility of Mitsubishi supplying Mercedes with the i's engines in the Smart Fortwo Mk II, but it's doubtful it will actually happen. Pc13 13:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, why I think there might be some link that DCX and Mitsubishi are not eager to publicize now, is that the i is rear-engined, unlike any other keicar in many years. As concerns engine data, according to DeLarge the 3B20 has a bore of 65.4 mm (quite unlike the 3B10, which has 75.0 mm, so they may not be related at all), the previous 3G83 has 65.0 mm, and according to the spec sheet I have beside me Smarts have either 66.5 mm or 65.5 mm - go figure! Bravada, talk - 14:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. I mean a few cc can be lost this or that way, as I wouldn't be surprised if the Japanese engine is not a direct copy of the European engine (if it is related anyway), due to regulations and stuff. On the other hand, it can be pure coincidence...

NO NO, the smart USES 1.0 LITER ENGINE from mitsubishi which isnt listed in mitsu's engines article, delarge i dont know the designation for this 1.0 liter from mitsubishi which smart uses, 3b10 and 3b20 are different engines... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.2.122.8 (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

The technical paper cited in the article did not mention a code for the "i" Concept 1.0 L. However, the bore and stroke is 72 x 81.8 mm. This compares with the specs given by SmartCar of America, which says it's a Mitsubishi powerplant: 2.7 x 3.1 inches, 60.962 cu in. (68.6 x 78.75 mm, 999 cc).[1] However, those numbers don't add up AT ALL - those bore/stroke measurements don't equal the given capacity using either three or four cylinders!?! No engine in my spreadsheet of Mitsubishi powerplants (and I have 127 documented so far) matches the new Smart's specs. However, at the SmartCar America link they say "The engine is the same type as the turbo-charged engine that was to be used in Mitsubishi Motors new concept mini car. There are even alternative drives on the drawing board." I'd therefore have to take a wild guess and say that it's a variant of the 3B series that we don't know about. --DeLarge 15:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review.

User:DeLarge: You asked for help from a handful of people to check out this article prior to WP:GAC. I strongly suggest you do this via the 'official' route of using the Peer Review mechanism. The reason is that the WP:GAC folks will look more favorably on an article that's been through peer review than one that hasn't. You are actually doing a peer review by asking a bunch of people to help - so you might as well make it official and get the benefit of having been seen to do so. I'll check out the article carefully tonight. SteveBaker 22:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I was thinking of that before I posted, but I've always been a bit underwhelmed by WP:PR, which seems to a great extent to be a series of redirects to style guides that I already try to follow (e.g. automated peer review suggestions" and "User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a."). I was hoping for WP AutoProject feedback first. --DeLarge 11:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

GA review

I feel I cannot be impartial enough to give the article a proper GA review, i.e. either fail or promote, but after reading I have the feeling it is a truly good article, prepared with a lot of care and dilligence by a devoted editor. Still, I believe some minor shortcomings can be addressed to make it an even better nominee (please forgive me for being really nitpicky, I can't help myself once I start):

1. (first paragraph) I am afraid that simply taking a bit out of the manufacturer's press release is not the best practice both on the account of respecting copyright and maintaining an NPOV - this clearly does read as the marketing blurb it is, I believe it can be rephrased to explain the underlying facts in an NPOV manner.
2. I am not sure whether the second paragraph isn't overly enthusiastic, but then I would probably write one like that myself...
3. The section on drivetrain seems a bit overloaded with technical specifications for the average reader. And again, I am not a fan of ugly gray tables... Perhaps there is a solution...
4. What exactly do the 659 litres of luggage space pertain to? 659 litres is quite a lot, I guess this refers to some maximum, perhaps with the rear seats folded away (if they do), and doesn't quite correspond with the previous claim of compromised cargo capacity. Perhaps providing the actual trunk space with the seats up and below the window line as is customary (or at least it is the way I am accustomed to seeing it done) might be more informative. A conversion to cubic feet might be useful for readers accustomed to Imperial measurements.
5. What the reviewers said about the concept is not that encyclopedic, I am afraid. I don't think not knowing that would make my experience with the article any worse, so I'd just do away with that sentence.
6. I think that the article could provide more information on the SE-RO, especially on its unusual body given that its not like the final i.
7. The sentence "25,000 cars per year will be produced" breaks up the prose in a rather awkward way, or better said, seems pretty poorly integrated into the paragraph. Sorted - see below.
8. I am not sure whether the Hello Kitty does belong with commercially available models - I think it should be made clear which models were available to regular customers and which were one-offs. Was the "i Play" limited to some small number to, or is it still available? Any data on sales volumes? Sorted - see below.
9. Forgive me for not waiting for the quoted PDF to open, but I can hardly believe there is any source that could substantiate the claim of any vehicle being "the most appealing", as such statements seem entirely subjective. Perhaps whatever JD Power said can be put down in a more neutral manner.

There! In case you'd desire some more nitpicking, you know where to find me :D Good luck with your GAN and have fun with further improving this and other articles! PrinceGloria 17:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply

1. I quoted it exactly because the kind of spiel that companies produce to justify their weird product names is often best quoted verbatim (with a straight face). Trying to paraphrase marketingspeak, especially Engrish marketingspeak, gives it a gravitas and respectability it doesn't usually deserve. That's exactly the reson I made sure I put it in quotes, and preceded it with "the company stated". However, I'll try to do something with it.
2. I'm actually slightly annoyed about the second paragraph; it didn't exist until I had the article peer reviewed, at which point the bot told me to "Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article." In the paragraph's defence, it is all true, is cited, and more detail is provided later in the article.
3. Well, while I admit that's true, it is a section about the car's engine/gearbox, and while a casual reader may be initially overwhelmed, the article would be lacking without these details. And again, in its defence, I've made sure most of the "jargon" is contained within the specifications section and not running amok all over the rest of the article. It's very heavily wikilinked too. But I'll have a look at creating a table at the end of the section and see if it helps.
4. I didn't like that sentence a lot myself, but having already compared the wheelbase to other cars, I didn't want to do a luggage space comparison in the same paragraph. It is the maximum luggage space, with the rear seats folded, and is the only figure I've seen quoted, hence why it's the only figure included. I'm just going to include a couple of reviews to cite which specifically mention the issue, plus I have a cubic feet conversion.
5. Hmmmm. I'd be tempted to agree to disagree here; I've seen quite a few reviews since which called the car an egg; that particular citation was simply the first, and since it was a common theme in reviews, I included it. I also wanted Boulay's name in the main text, and everything seemed to flow into everything else in a way I liked. I actually thought it was one of the better sentences in the article.
6. I'd like to, but unfortunately there's not a huge amount out there that I could find -- I don't even know if they were exhibited outside of that one car show. Still, there's definitely room for expansion, and I've always felt the article was a little short.
7. OK, I can probably fix that quickly enough.
8. OK, I'll hunt for more details. I did mention that the HK was unique, and the Kurashiki model's limited run (100 cars) is also already included. The i Play was supposed to be a limited edition (3,000 units from May to October 2006), but is still for sale according to the manufacturer's site. It might turn out to be "limited" to however many they can sell. I changed the heading to "special editions" though, simply because the word "limited" now occurs several times in the paragraph and I don't want to overdo it.
9. Again, hmmmm... to quote the JD Power blurb (it's only 31k, by the way), "The Mitsubishi i is the most appealing mini-car model in Japan, setting a new industry benchmark in overall satisfaction, according to the J.D. Power Asia Pacific 2006 Japan Mini-Car Automotive Performance, Execution and Layout (APEAL) Study" (egad that's a grim acronym); "The study measures an important dimension of mini-car owner satisfaction by determining what excites and delights owners about their vehicle’s performance and design." Basically they surveyed and quantified owners' opinions, and ranked the vehicles accordingly. I However, I'll put "Most Appealing" in quotes to clarify that, and I'll specify that only 11 minicars were included, if that helps tone it down a bit.

I'll get on with making some edits to the page now to see if I can improve things. --DeLarge 21:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

<rm indenting from conversation>

Reply from PrinceGloria: thanks for considering my comments, I appreciate the improvements and I think most of the problems have now been rectified. Some of them might still need a further look into, I let myself leave some more comments

1. I believe it's on the contrary, actually. Quoting marketing blurbs verbatim in an encyclopedia makes them sound more respectable and actually elevates them to facts rather than adspeak. That said, I think I'm OK with the current formulation. I am only wondering whether the choice of the name couldn't be explained somewhere in the article, while giving space in the lead section to some more important info from within the article - see below (just a suggestion to ponder upon).
2. The more I think of it, the less issues I have with it, actually. That said, some rather important info from within article is not reflected in the lead section, like the fact that the i is the first rear-engined kei car since a few decades and is technically, and in terms of design, very different from its contemporaries from other manfuacturers or even Mitsu.
3. I see you're not that satisfied with the table, as the standard WP table is the ugly grey table we all abhor. I can't promise anything, but I believe I saw a more handsome solution somewhere, I'll try to get back to it and propose you a solution.
4. Well, actually I don't think the change is for the better - quoting "reviewers" is very risky, as you can never be sure whether there aren't "reviewers" who would write something totally opposite, plus it is not very encyclopedic in essence (like all those articles made up in half by quoting Jeremy Clarkson's rumblings on the car). I know it is hard to find some data regarding the actual trunk space (I still can't myself), but I believe providing that number would still be the best solution, and as I suppose it oscillates around 100 litres, I don't think one needs to quote or refer to anybody stating that it rather isn't much.
5. I was actually referring to the other part of the sentence - while the inclusion of Boulay is absolutely necessary and I even believe it could be made in a more prominent way given both the important part the car's design plays in its market position and the importance of this design to Boulay's career, stating that some reviewers think he was inspired by the Renault 4CV is just furthering speculation (unless Boulay confirmed that), and the part about it being "a crystal ball yada yada" is rather both a truism and redundant (I'd write something like that in a review if I absolutely had to punch a few more characters to reach the desired length of the text). The egg is absolutely OK with me.
6. A few sources that seemed to me to possibly be useful at first glance: [2] (did you know SE-RO stands for "secret room", I wonder what's the relation to Mitsubishi Zero...), [3], [4], [5] (my question answered...)
7. Simply perfect.
8. I think it's OK now, perhaps I was overly sensitive to something I can't put a finger on...
9. Today the PDF opened very nicely for me and now I have more insight into the issue. Actually, I believe the entire first paragraph of the press release should be dismissed as pure marketing blurb - they are trying to push their "APEAL" acronym by making the association with "appealing" and overall that's a bit in poor taste if you'd ask me. The notion of "setting a new benchmark" is just as well as "being on the cutting edge" or whatnot to me (this is a criticism of JD Power's blurb, not the article, to make sure). Now, what is really important there is that Mitsubishi ranked highest out of 11 mini-cars the survey took into account, and it was ahead of the rest of the pack by a wide margin. It is also important to note that it is a ranking made up by summarizing the consumer evaluations of eight factors JD Power believes contribute to owner satisfaction. Perhaps you can phrase it better, or actually for sure you can.

I have to dash off now, please bear with my nitpicking and not being too actively helpful... PrinceGloria 07:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

<indent reset> OK, I've taken out the indented comments - I think they can lead to trouble if I start indenting under your indents, etc etc. I'll remove the numbering though, especially since two issues are sorted.

• Lead -- When I expanded the article about six months ago, the Did You Know? people put it on the frontpage as "Mitsubishi makes a car called simply the 'i'"; it was the peculiar name which stood out to them. Since it's only one or two sentences it doesn't really need its own section, and there's no other sections it easily fits into. The rear-engined thing was a novelty, although remember that the Honda Beat and Autozam AZ-1 were both in production barely a decade ago. It could be expanded though.

• Engine/gearbox and table -- awaiting suggestions. I don't actually think the table's ugly, per se, but I know that tables and bullet points are discouraged on WP if the info can be written in prose.

• Luggage space -- In an effort to stay neutral, I didn't want to expound on the upsides of the rear-midship layout without pointing out the biggest downside, which is of course the loss of space to the trunk-located engine. Two reviewers felt it was a big enough issue to mention it, and where I've cited them I've specifically mentioned that they were reviewers, no more or less. The autozine.org citation also mentions it in passing as well.[6] It's not really a contentious issue; it's simply a fact that rear-engined cars have less rear luggage space because there's an engine taking up some room.

• Crystal ball and Renault 4CV -- again, I've explicitly mentioned that it was a reviewer's comment. I'm avoiding weasel words, and I'm citing my source. We're allowed to include speculation and opinion on WP as long as we don't misrepresent it as fact. As for padding out the review, "crystal ball" was in the cited article's title.

• SE-RO -- I found that Motor Trend article last night, although it was the comparison to a '50s aircraft that stood out. Didn't see the AE-Plus one, which is probably the better article. I'll see what I can write up in the time available.

• APEAL survey -- the paragraph only says that it was the "most appealing" according to the JD Power survey (and puts the claim in quotations). We're not saying it really is the most appealing, merely reporting results of a poll. It's a bit like Forest Whitaker; he's just won "Best Actor" at the Oscars. So, is he the best actor then? No, he just won a poll which bestows that title on him for a year. We're still allowed to report that though, as long as we say "he won the Oscar for Best Actor in 2007" as opposed to "he was the best actor in 2006-07" --DeLarge 13:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am terribly sorry for the fact that it took me so long to reply - I guess I am in the "busy in real life" mode now... Now, let me refer to specific issues as it became customary:

• Lead - I might know a thing or two about how the article made it to the DYK ;) , but that's a bit OT. I somehow managed to conveniently forget about the ABC trio, yet still, the RR setup remains unique among 21st century keicars (perhaps with the exception of kei Smart). For how the origins of the name can have their own sections, see the Lancia Flaminia (a GA itself).
• Tech stuff - while I do support the general rule of avoiding laundry lists and tables whereever prose could be used, I actually believe this is not the case - keeping it in prose makes the article much less comprehensible for the average reader and quite obviously clumsy. Then again, I still didn't deliver on my promise, so I should better cut it off now...
• Luggage space - I guess I failed to make myself clear. I throughly agree with mentioning it as a downside of the RR setup, which to me is obvious enough not to require a citation (although I somehow feel that "necessairly" is redundant in the sentence), what I am not quite fond of is relying on "some reviewers" to declare the luggage compartent "off the pace". I believe a much better solution would be simply quoting a more meaningful number stating the actual luggage capacity with the seat up and up to the shelf. As I believe it would not be much bigger than the one in the Smart Fortwo, I think that simply stating that it is rather not much would not require a specific citation.
• Renault 4CV thing - I hope you understand my objection does not concern the way you quoted the reviews, but rather the appropriateness of their inclusion at all. To cut a long story short, I strongly believe whatever a journalist might think Olivier Boulay might have thought or not is not encyclopedic at all. Concerning the "crystal ball" - there is a link to concept car provided, so that anybody can check what concept cars are all about. Stating that a concept car provides a hint towards new design directions of the presenting manufacturer is hardly anything worth quoting, as it is fairly obvious.
• SE-RO - I do appreciate your expanding on it, though I'd obviously like to find out even more about this more obscure and unique concept car. I have no idea whether there is much more in the available sources (didn't have time to read them thoroughly, as a matter of fact), but I guess it would be nice to explain how a tin-can-shaped car resembles a WWII fighter plane, and also how specifically the SE-RO differs from the other concept and the production i. Not the top priority though, I could live without it.
• APEAL - I also appreciate your reasoning here, but still, while the Academy Award is explicitly named "Best Actor", that is not the case here, there is merely a mention in some press release. I guess reporting on the fact that JD Power's PR department was trying to push a rather bad pun is not that encyclopedic, it would rather make more sense to explain very briefly how the ranking was actually compiled. I know that simply putting quotation marks around some phrases is much easier the re-editing the text, but I think the former should not be relied upon in such cases.

Please excuse me if I come accross as overly blunt - it is quite late here and I am certainly VERY tired (though happy to have finally responded), so please believe me that my intention was just to get my points accross. I sincerely hope you would find at least some of them substantiated. Again, good luck with your nomination! PrinceGloria 00:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, another round of replies. I'm short of time right now, so any actual article edits might take a few hours to appear...

• Lead/rear engine/name -- I'll see about finding more source work about the rear-engined stuff. I'm of course limited to external sources, however, and there's surprisingly little out there to expand upon. I'll also see what I can do about the name, although for the record I think Lancia Flaminia's single paragraph section is the kind of thing that should be avoided if possible, GA or not.
• Tech stuff -- I'll have another go at compiling a table of some sort. The benefit of it would be to include the individual models. However, I'm still having the problem that the car's various techie attributes are not only worthy of inclusion, they're virtually ubiquitous in any automobile article on WP. I know this isn't a technical reference source, but I don't think we should be "dumbing down" when <user assumption> the majority of readers of this particular article would expect power/torque/engine tech info to be included.</user assumption>
• Luggage space -- we're back to the issue of verifiability here. I can't offhand remember where I read the 659 litres figure first, but it's the only one I've ever seen. Even translating MMC's Japanese pages I'm not finding any measurements. Right now, it's that figure, or nothing at all...
• Renault 4CV/crystal ball -- well, remember that the crystal ball is also a literal reference to the glassy, rounded shape of the car, it's not merely a reference to concept cars and their role in automotive design. In combining the simile of the physical shape with the concept car's role, "crystal ball-shaped" was a far better simile than "egg-shaped".
• SE-RO -- I actually agree with another (uncited) reviewer that it looks more like one of those American '50s diners or "aluminum" mobile homes. However, I think the aircraft comparison referred more to '50s civil airliners than WW2 fighters -- it's only the SE-RO/Zero name which references the latter. Again, I'll see if I can find out more.
• APEAL -- well, to be honest I found my way to the JD Power page after reading about the "Most Appealing" award elsewhere. However, where news reports just regurgitate the content of a press release, I tend as a rule to just go to the original source, as it's slightly less likely to be archived than a news site and therefore become inaccessible. Again, we're back to WP:V, and the tenet the "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". We can verify that according to a JD Power survey the car was the "most appealing" of eleven kei cars. WP:NPOV only requires that we present verifiable info in a neutral manner, not that we excise all potentially positive comments. Going into greater depth is what the citation is for (since the article is about the car, not the survey it topped).

I'll see what I can do to the page later, --DeLarge 13:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to reply to reply

Starting a new section to make replying a bit more convenient:

1. I am a structure whore, I actually like to have every paragraph bear a heading... That's not a major issue to me anyway so I guess no harm would be done if it stays the way it is.
2. Again, there is no need to quote any source about the rear engine stuff, what I am after is the removal of the reference to "some reviewers", which I find unencyclopedic per se (and not wrongly done from the formal point of view).
3. And yet again - no prob with the tech stuff at all, especially the meagre amounts of specs presented in the article currently compared to some article listing expotential amounts of all possible numbers. The table thing is of secondary importance to me, I promised to get down to it and I intend on delivering... one day :D
4. Well, if the 659 litres figure cannot be actually referenced to any source, I'd do away with it completely, especially given that it might be that your memory is playing tricks on you (I've got a pretty strong reason to believe it might, and I guess a quick look at the number and the infobox might help you understand why it is so :D ). I guess there's nothing wrong with simply stating that the luggage space is compromised by the RR layout full stop.
5. Oh wow, if it is like you say with the crystal ball thing, it's even worse than it could be. That's a really poor attempt at a pun in bad taste and should not be quoted at all. More seriously, all this stuff might be verifiable and somehow true (it IS true that this and this guy wrote that and that), BUT it is simply unencyclopedic and therefore it should not be included in a GAN.
6. 50s Americana come to my mind too, but perhaps if you'd take away the wings, propeller and the tail section from the Zero (so basically only the cabin would be left) and took an unpainted one, it might look a bit like the SE-RO... Anyway, it is a rather controversial heritage to hail to, which might explain why Mitsubishi made the reference that indirect. OK, that was some rather pointless banter on my part, moving on to my pet peeve...
7. I strongly believe that mentioning the fact that a press release from JD Power attempts at playing a pun on the name of the survey does not anything to the article and is rather obviously unencyclopedic, no matter whether the way it is currently quoted is technically correct or not. It would be very encyclopedic though to expand on how the results were compiled, which the more important part of the press release describes.

Well, seems like I got even grumpier and less bearable than before... Let me blame it on perpetual lack of time and sleep yet again - I know I should edit what I wrote above, but I really DO have to see about my bed now... G'night! PrinceGloria 23:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to some issues, struckthrough where I think they've been dealt with...

1. "I am a structure whore, I actually like to have every paragraph bear a heading..." OK, I added a wee bit in the intro about the layout, and gave the "origination of the name" its own paragraph (if not its own section). I've struck this through as being "dealt with" as you seem OK with it?
2. "...what I am after is the removal of the reference to "some reviewers"..." I'll have to dispute this. I understand your (good) intention to avoid weasel words, but reviews are cited/quoted in Maserati MC12 and Talbot Tagora, both of them FA car articles. I'll look again at exactly how I've written them, but at the moment we disagree here (although I removed reviewers comments about luggage space -- see below).
3. "And yet again - no prob with the tech stuff at all..." I made a table anyway, which I thought might be important because I mention later on that the Hello Kitty edition is based on the G model. Looks slightly better and less crowded than the first table too. An improvement? This might be "strikethrough-able" (sic).
4. "Well, if the 659 litres figure cannot be actually referenced to any source..." It can: the 4Car review which calls it "off the pace" cites the figure. The trouble is, when I read that article I thought it was the second time I'd seen the "659 litres" quoted, but now I can't find what I thought was the first instance. Maybe I only saw it once. I've removed the number and the reviewer statements anyway (though refs to the reviews remain as supporting citations).
5. "Oh wow, if it is like you say with the crystal ball thing, it's even worse than it could be." No changes made here as yet.
6. "50s Americana come to my mind too..." Just a comment, and we seem to be in agreement that this bit is OK? Struckthrough for now.
7. "I strongly believe that mentioning the fact that a press release from JD Power..." Edited the sentence. I don't think it reads nearly as well, given that the title of the study is so long, contrived and clumsy, and it has a detrimental effect on the way the paragraph reads. And I disagree that going into greater depth about the study is "more encyclopedic". Aside from the fact that the article's about the car and not the award, I can only see trivial, unencyclopedic detail in the rest of the press release (esp paragraphs two and three). What makes the award of note is who gave it out, and I've included that info.

So that leaves issues 2, 5, possibly 7? Maybe 3 as well? Agreed? --DeLarge 23:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I really appreciate your taking my comments so seriously and all your efforts to improve the article and satisfy the grumpy dark side of my personality. I am afraid it's too late for me to come up a comprehensive reply, so please bear with me for some more time. Thanks again, PrinceGloria 23:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination Good afternoon (GMT time); I have reviewed this article on 17:38, Saturday December 14 2024 (UTC) in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. There are seven main critia that the article must comply with to pass: Well-written: Pass Factually accurate: Pass Broad: Pass Neutrally written: Pass Stable: Pass Well-referenced: Pass Images: Pass I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has passed all categories and I therefore award it GA status. Congradulations to the lead editors, and keep up the excellent work! Sincerest regards, anthonycfc [talk] 01:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Revised - 14:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

FAC next?

I think it's worth pushing this article through the WP:FAC process - the only thing that going against it is that it's a bit short - but I see that a lot more short articles are making it through FA these days. The article seems to be complete - there really isn't anything else to say - so it's not like waiting to put it through FAC would make it any more likely to pass. If it's ever going to pass, now is the time. SteveBaker 00:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

While I obviously support the effort to make this article an FA, I would like to point out that the article was promoted to GA in the middle of the discussion me and DeLarge were having, and as such it became somehow halted, but some issues remain unresolved. I think it would be better to make sure they will all be, as well as seek some review from WikiProject members again (perhaps there will be more interest on the FA level) to reduce the chances the article might be failed due to some issues that could have been resolved earlier (it's been a long night, please pardon my English...). OTOH, if the Maserati MC12 made an FA in that state, I am worried the process became rather lax, and it puts more responsibility on us to make sure the articles proposed are top-notch while nominated. PrinceGloria 04:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the un-struck-through complaints in the last round of your debate:

2) "...what I am after is the removal of the reference to "some reviewers"..."

It looks like you got your wish here - I don't see the word "some" anywhere in the article and the only mention of "reviewers" seems very concise now. This complaint should be struck out.

3) "And yet again - no prob with the tech stuff at all..."

Looks like this has also been taken care of.

5) "Oh wow, if it is like you say with the crystal ball thing, it's even worse than it could be."

The "crystal ball" thing is pretty much a direct quote from the referenced article - what's your problem with it? Again - I don't see anything to be concerned about here.

7) "I strongly believe that mentioning the fact that a press release from JD Power..."

This appears to be a matter of taste rather than anything actually wrong with the article. Reviewers should refrain from demanding adjustment where it is just a matter of taste. What's there reads well, it's clear, it's gramatically correct, it's spelled right, it's true and it's referenced. That meets the FA standard.

Overall, I don't see what you have (from that list at least) to complain about. But you obviously do - so why not give us a more concise list of your remaining issues and let's see what we can do about them. As far as I can see, the article is ready. SteveBaker 04:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

My rather lenghty conversation with DeLarge above continued over email later, so I understand why you might not see where I'am at at the moment. To cut a long story short, I believe that the opinions of individual reviewers and commentators are simply non-notable and hardly qualify as facts, and therefore they should not be included in an encyclopedic article. Please note that, although they seem "technically correct" (referenced and all), the sentences contain no information beyond what some guys said. While it might be amusing to read what their associations are, I don't think this is exactly encyclopedic material.

Seeing how the FA process does not seem to scrutinize articles well enough anymore, I would be very wary about leaving it as-is, as it hass all chances of becoming an FA that way. There's nothing bad about it, obviously, rather on the contrary, but it would set another precedent for including rather meaningless stuff and could serve as a counterargument for all the POV-pushers who try to substantiate their points by "referencing" to reviews, editorials and all other kinds of stuff. OTOH, I think that the reader experience with the article would not be that much compromised if we would not learn that the car made some guys somewhere think of an egg or Renault 4CV (the latter requires rather well-developed imagination, btw), or that one journalist has a penchant for overly figurative metaphors... I mean, come on, do we REALLY need to know that? PrinceGloria 05:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. The other issues mentioned in my numbered points above have obviously been resolved already, as you have noted.

OK - so your complaints are entirely about the reviewers? I think the official policy on this (which has been debated at enormous lengths in articles about movies and TV shows) is that what the reviewer said is not fact, the fact that he said it IS fact. So when a reviewer talks about the car, you can say he said that - but you can't say that what he said is necessarily true. The opinions of reviewers do matter - especially for a very new (and quite strange) car like this one. Whether reporting these particular reviewers is 'POV' depends on whether they are a representative cross-section of reviewers or whether they are only the favorable reviewers. Of the handful of Mitsubishi i reviews I've read, I'd say these quotes were pretty much typical - so I don't see any evidence of a bias in which reviewers were quoted. Also, reviewers have to be notable - you can't quote what your next-door neighbour thinks about the car...but if these guys are reviewers for reputable car magazines or TV shows then they do meet Wikipedias's notability guidelines - so again, I don't see a problem.

I do agree with your sentiments that the FAC process seems to have gotten easier lately. Several recent articles (including my own Mini Moke have reached FA status with barely a handful of reviewers commenting on them. But I don't think the quality of the articles that are getting through is noticably lower than it was before - so maybe it's only a percieved problem rather than an actual one. Wikipedia:Featured article statistics shows that the number of FA's passed has stayed pretty stable at around 30 per month since the dawn of time (just as well because we need to keep up that rate so we get a new one on the front page every day!) But that steady number is despite a doubling of the number of candidate articles over the past two years. So the probability of an article passing has actually gone down - not up. But the number of reviewers stays about the same - so it would not be surprising if there are now half as many reviewers per article as there was a couple of years ago. I'm not sure what that means in the end. SteveBaker 07:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) Well, thank you for all the comments so far. I'm glad it seems like the above issues have been resolved.

With regards to the recent lull in activity here, I apologise for that. Basically I had a two week period of concentration on the page while it went through the GAN, and after User:Anthony cfc suddenly failed passed it, I kind of sighed with relief and sat back a bit.

I'm in agreement with User:SteveBaker about citing reviews. The problem is when they're used to substantiate a POV, i.e. one reviewer praises its handling and that gets shoe-horned into the article as an indisputable fact by a fanboy, without regard to other opinions. Our job is to pick and choose only reviews which reflect a wider consensus of opinion. I saw one reviewer complain about the "cheapness" of the interior materials, but as that was an isolated copmplaint it won't appear. Alternately, I can quote reviews on the "funky" shape of the car or the lack of luggage space, because I know I won't edit war with someone citing those who think the car is roomy but dull looking. Everyone's commented on the styling, and I've selected the two or three which best help me write "compelling prose".

Finally, FA status...

• MMC's annual report is due out in the next month or two, and hopefully more detailed production/sales stats will become available. That, and the car's introduction to the UK in July makes me think the article may expand a little over the next few months, if for no other reason than further English language reference sources will appear as a result.
• I want to expand the concepts section as per User:PrinceGloria's previous comments. Also, reading it as it is, I might also like to move the "Concepts" section above the "technical details", and split off the MiEV bit into the "Special editions"
• I want to expand the "Specifications" sub-heading, so that it's more than just a table. I can do this quickly, actually. Nothing Taurus-like; just a brief run down of what extras the high-spec cars have over the regular ones, like alloy wheels and UVA front glass.
• At the moment, it's too short, and I don't just mean counting bytes. At 19.5k, there are shorter FA pages (e.g. Templon, Matthew Brettingham), but they have fewer inline references and wikilinks, and much longer sections, so they seem to have a lot more readable content.

In short, I'd prefer to hold off for a month on the basis of size and stability, and see if I can improve/expand it. Alternatively though, if you nominate it just now I wouldn't fight you. You have more experience with FAs than I do and perhaps feedback from others will help? --DeLarge 11:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I of course wholly support DeLarge's decision to withhold the nom for the abovementioned reasons. I have a few comments, though:

• I am not sure whether we really need more "specifications" - I believe it is better to link to some sources providing them rather than store them all in WP, after all WP is not just a content repository. I think the amount of specs is just right now, and I would also be wary about getting into more detail concerning equipment. I guess if it is something really notable, like the bike rack in the new Corsa or some "first"/early adoption of a new gadget, it is good to mention it, but merely stating that in more expensive trim levels the car comes with the usual features such as alloy wheels, power this and that etc. might not add too much to the article, and would serve as an encouragement for all those guys who dump loads of specs into articles.
• I believe that brevity is the essence of wit, so small size should not be an issue. I don't think that Talbot Tagora is that much longer, and still, it does cover almost everything there is to be said about the car. The i's career has just begun, so the article would surely grow over time. I believe quality should take precedence over quantity, and at presence, the article exhibits a very healthy preference for the former.

As concerns the "reviewer" issue, it is really important to me and I am afraid I failed to make my point clear. It is NOT our job to decide which reviews "demonstrate a wider consensus of opinion", that is simply OR. I mean, there are no objective criteria, so even in good will you are creating POV content. In almost every case, one can come up with reviews stating something different, and I believe neither party has the absolute right to claim "their" reviews should be included, while others should not. Including ALL reviews ever written is totally impossible and pointless, while the knowledge of what certain reviewers said does not add much to the article IMHO.

Now, I am not saying that the journalists quoted here are unreliable or anything, it's just that, let's say, I believe that comparing the car to the 4CV is rubbish, while it should absolutely be noted that some people compared the car to the Smart, and I am perfectly sure this opinion is more widespread blah blah. So, now I demand the 4CV comment to be removed and some source citing Smart to be inserted. How about that? Such things will happen all the time if we apply such "fuzzy logic", or even actually they do (usually ending up with articles infested with myriads of references to some more or less anonymous reviews).

I guess "everyone" is a bit too superlative, but we can agree that the car's unusual styling has sparked many comments from journalist, and that's a fact here. I think such quoting of reviews as in the article actually compromises, rather than improves, the prose. So, why not just state the former and concentrate on the car itself, which is the subject here? Is comparing the car to Renault 4CV or "crystal ball" (geez!) any less isolated than claiming the interior is cheap? PrinceGloria 14:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. Now, as to the FA - my comment was actually pretty unsubstantiated, I was just very surprised to see the MC12 pass FA, as the quality of that article is really inferior to all other automotive FAs. I have to apologize for the improper generalization, but I think it should still serve as a warning sign that some things may slip through the FA process. And this is important, because FAs later serve as examples for editors of other similar articles, so whatever will be there, will be treated as a guideline. As I believe the article could pass FA without much problem as-is (and this speaks highly of both the article and the principal author), we have to make sure before the nomination that if it passed, nothing about it would generate issues with people going "but in the Mitsubishi i article...".

Section break, edits of 2007-03-25

PS2. Not to depreciate the gravity of my comments above, I'd like to add a bit on the changes you've just made. I obviously appreciate the changes to the lead section, but I have some reservations concerning two statements, namely:

1. Can we say for sure that the Mitsubishi i was designed with the keicar class in mind ONLY? Unless Mitsu or the designers would expressly say so, we won't know either. I do see your point, but I guess it can be put in another way, so as not to "create facts".
2. From what I can infer from the sources you provided, it is not SPECULATED that the i will come in a EV version in 2010, but it is Mitsu's official plan to do so. Therefore, there is no need to say that "it is speculated" (not to mention everything that is put after "it is speculated" is almost always not encyclopedic, so this phrase should not be used anyway).

The official press statement on its release said "Ushering in a new age for the minicar, "i" was developed as an innovative Premium Small Car that successfully overcomes the tradeoffs traditionally associated with the category",[7] and I'm fairly certain that they didn't end up with a 3395 x 1475mm sized car by accident. However, I can't say that they never, ever considered export sales, so I'll remove "only ever" from the sentence.

The EV thing: gahhh. As recently as the end of 2005 everyone was talking about the Colt MIEV (with the in wheel motors technology) as Mitsubishi's 2010 EV.[8] Then the i MiEV appeared and things seemed to change. However, with three years to go I think it'd be crystal balling to say that these plans are definite. I've spent a lot of time trawling every press release and technical document I could get my hands on, and I still can't find a proper official statement on the matter. I just keep seeing "Mitsubishi spokesmen have said...", but my cited sources are only blog-standard, so until MMC confirms things publicly I think we should play it safe. --DeLarge 22:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)