Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sunbeam Tiger/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Sunbeam Tiger

[edit]

Sunbeam Tiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Dennis Brown (talk), Eric Corbett (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I bring this article here with some trepidation as I've never really done significant work on a car article before, but I had fantastic help from Dennis Brown, a fellow petrol head who did much of the research heavy lifting. This Ford V8-powered muscle-car version of the rather pretty Sunbeam Alpine is almost an object lesson in what went wrong with the British motor industry in the 1960s, and its subsequent domination by the Big Three American triumverate of Ford, Chrysler and General Motors. So please don't be put off from taking a look because you think you won't be interested in an article about a car. Eric Corbett 00:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A few initial observations – I've not yet made a detailed reading:-

  • The Production information in the infobox could be clearer, e.g. "7083 built between 1964–67"
    But that wouldn't be grammatically correct; it would have to read "7083 built between 1964 and 1967", which seems excessively wordy to me. Eric Corbett 11:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The white space after the Background section isn't really necessary and is a bit distracting – the image barely leaks into the next section
    Done. Eric Corbett 11:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short quotations look better when absorbed into the text rather than in quote templates (see Initial prototypes and Demise sections)
    Done. Eric Corbett 11:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

I have not spotchecked. Subject to that and to the above small fixes, sources look fine. Brianboulton (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments

  • Should the images have an "alt =" parameter to comply with accessibility recommendations?
    Alt text is not part of the FA criteria. Eric Corbett 12:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ... but nevertheless I've added alt ext to all but the lead image, as it seems only polite to do so. The {{infobox automobile}} template needs to have a parameter added for alt text so far as I can tell, which I may do later if nobody else does first. Unless someone knows of an easier way to insert the alt text of course. Eric Corbett 14:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Details I missed: distinguishing external features not mentioned (or I missed them): distinctive wheel covers, shield with Ford 260, trim flashes, and word Tiger; compression ratio, carburetor; tyres mentioned as inadequate, but not described.
    I think all this is covered now, apart from distinctive wheel covers, which I haven't seen anyone mention. Eric Corbett 12:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've searched over a dozen sources that discuss the differences in great detail and none indicate different wheel covers between the I and II. Photographic evidence, while anecdotal, also backs this observation. I can't speak to local dealer wheel options which likely varied widely by location, but Rootes didn't seem to offer any OEM wheel options. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This] indicates that the wheel options (and others) were LAT offered by Shelby and not Rootes OEM options. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 20:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes the reader has to expend extra effort to work out the meaning from the context:
    • ". . . the production line, which had to be fitted with a [manual gearbox ] . . .". The reader has to resolve the syntactic ambiguity by weighing up the likelihood of a production line having this particular type of gearbox.
      I've simplified that sentence, which now reads "The first few Tigers assembled had to be fitted with a Borg-Warner 4-speed all-synchromesh manual gearbox ...". Eric Corbett 12:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Neither did it have . . . " The antecedent of "it" is unambiguous but requires unneccessary effort by the reader (there is an intervening "it" with a different antecedent; the negative "neither" misleadingly suggests the same subject as the subject of "lacks".
      Fixed now I think, as below. Eric Corbett 12:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Rootes" can refer to several different people and one company. In British English, at least, I would prefer the company to be used with a plural verb to make it immediately unambiguous ("Rootes was somewhat uneasy about the closeness of his relationship with Ford").
      A plural verb wouldn't really help, as there are two Rootes involved in the story, Lord Rootes and Brian Rootes, and I don't think there's any confusion anyway: "Rootes" always refers to the company and both Brian and Lord Rootes are clearly distinguished as such. Eric Corbett 22:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Series II Tiger was only officially available in the US, where it was called the "Tiger II".[ " might be easier to understand with a different word order (e.g. "Officially . . .")
      Changed as per your suggestion. Eric Corbett 12:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The factory only ever designated two". Since "designate" usually has two objects, the reader may be left waiting for the second shoe to drop. Perhaps a nominal construction would be better.
      I don't follow your point about "designate" usually having two objects. It's very common to say, for instance, that historic house XYZ was designated a Grade I listed building on such-and-such a date. Eric Corbett 22:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry! I was unclear. What I meant was that "designate" is usually followed by a further predicative complement in addition to the direct object (or the subject when used with the passive). So you say "[They] designated the historic house (1) a Grade 1 listed building (2). So I read the sentence as analogous to "They only designated two historic houses," equivalent to the passive "Only two historic houses were designated." This use of "designate" without the additional complement may, of course, be jargon.--Boson (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The suspension was independent at the front using coil springs and at the rear had a live axle and semi-elliptic springs." might be easier to read with some more punctuation.
      Now reads "The suspension was independent at the front, using coil springs, and at the rear had a live axle and semi-elliptic springs." Eric Corbett 12:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bodies were supplied by Pressed Steel but engines were "received from" Ford. As a reader I puzzle over whether this is just "elegant variation" or if there is some subtle difference between A receiving something from B and A being supplied with something by B.
      That "elegant variation" seems somewhat redundant anyway, so the sentence now reads "Painted and trimmed bodies were supplied by Pressed Steel in Oxfordshire, and the engines and gearboxes directly from Ford in America". Eric Corbett 23:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not a great fan of unthinking placement of commas after words like "nevertheless", but I think one might be appropriate in this sentence: "Nevertheless the Tiger's front-to-back weight ratio is substantially similar to the Alpine's, at 51.7/48.3 front/rear. " "Nevertheless" is contrastive, but it is not very clear what part of the previous sentence it is meant to contrast with.
      I don't really see that a comma adds any clarity there. Eric Corbett 22:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Initial negotiations seemed to go well, but ultimately broke down." might be better with the adverb "initially". Was it the negitiations or the initial negotiations that broke down?
    Changed to "Negotiations initially seemed to go well, but ultimately broke down." Eric Corbett 12:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Having measured" or "after measuring" might be "tighter" than "after having measured . . .".
    Done. Eric Corbett 22:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace "and therefore" with "so"? I think that would better match the style of the rest of the article.
    I don't like "and so understood", but on reflection I don't think that either "therefore" or "so" are needed anyway. Eric Corbett 22:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • a bigger clutch " better with an indefinite article?
    This has been changed to "a larger single dry plate hydraulically operated clutch". Eric Corbett 22:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is a bit heavy on inversion as a stylistic device:
    • "Neither did it have the resources to develop one . . ."
      I've merged that sentence with the preceding one: "Rootes realised that the Alpine needed more power if it was to compete successfully in world markets, but lacked a suitable engine and the resources to develop one." Eric Corbett 12:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "So impressed was he that . . ."
      Changed to "He insisted on driving the car himself, and was so impressed that shortly after returning from his test drive he contacted Henry Ford II directly ...". Eric Corbett 22:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "not only did Lord Rootes agree" ("not only . . . but that" seems a bit lopsided)
      Changed to "Not only did Lord Rootes agree that the car would go into production, but he decided that it should be launched at the 1964 New York Motor Show ..." Eric Corbett 22:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Boson (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Background image caption should probably end in period, but licensing all looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, I'm not certain. My feeling has always been that if you wouldn't write a caption as a full sentence in the article body then it ought not to end in a fullstop. But it's arguably a sentence in this case nevertheless, so ... I'm still not sure. Eric Corbett 16:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – After a few fixes (mainly to the references) that I've made to the article, I think it's good to go now. We don't see a lot of car articles come through here, and I don't remember seeing one that passed. This is good enough to serve as a model for future efforts. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking a look, and of course for your support. Eric Corbett 16:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thank you very much. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 02:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Having at long last finished my reading, I'm happy enough with the article, though I must admit I don't understand a lot of the language. I have a few minor issues/questions:
  • Whose is the quote: "a 'precision' instrument of questionable antecedents"?
    William Carroll's, now attributed. Eric Corbett 02:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pank" or "Panks"? ("Initial prototypes", para 3)
    It's Panks, fixed. Eric Corbett 01:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "already primered and painted bulkhead" – I don't think "primer" exists as a verb, therefore "primed", surely?
    I'm wanting to say that was the original word in the source. It seemed a bit odd, but since the source used it, I figured I would. I went ahead and changed the grammar per your suggestion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 02:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit bothered by "Jensen was...". Since the firm was actually called Jensen Motors, it would be more usual to refer to it as "Jensens", thus "Jensens were..." Not a deal-breaker, though.
    I'm inclined to think the singular is appropriate since we are referring to the company as a singular entity, but will leave that to Eric whose grammar skills exceed mine. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 02:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I too think that "Jensen" is correct. After all, Ford's full name is Ford Motor Company, but we refer to them as Ford, not Fords. Eric Corbett 02:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Positioning of the "however" in the second line of the second "Demise" paragraph: it reads better at start of sentence, otherwise the relation to the previous sentence is obscured.
    I've slightly rewritten the first two sentences of that paragraph to avoid the need for using "however" altogether. Now reads "Manufacturing a car powered by a competitor's engine was unacceptable to the new owner, but Chrysler's own 273 small-block V-8 was too large to fit under the Tiger's bonnet without major modifications." Eric Corbett 01:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting extension to the range of featured article, and perhaps a forerunner of more. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The article is concise but comprehensive, neutral, well-written, and well-referenced. The collapsed infobox section is somewhat unusual; a different heading for that section might help readers notice that some technical data are hidden.--Boson (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Boson. I've altered that infobox heading to "Technical summary". Eric Corbett 09:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sunbeam_Tiger/archive1&oldid=1076192123"