Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ford Mustang/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ford Mustang

[edit]

I'm extremely pleased to have contributed to this listing's growth. Someone even took the time to add metric subscripts to it! Again, thanks for your consideration. 0:28, 8 April 2004 (UTC) Lucky 6.9

  • Object - for now: Paragraphs way too long. Sections also needed - but not too many. It also sounds a bit too glowing and ra-ra to me = POV issues (see NPOV). There is also spurious bolding. Things like Cobra Jet should not be bolded (only self-redirects should be bolded - then only bolded the first time they are mentioned). --mav 00:18, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the tip, Mav. I've been a fan of the car for years and I admit to being somewhat enthusiastic. I trust you'll find the update to be more NPOV. If we can get this article "detailed out" and worthy of featuring before the Mustang's fortieth anniversary on April 19, so much the better! -- Lucky 6.9 04:08, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • Looks much better. I withdraw my objection. --mav
  • Support. Meticulous and informative. Chris Roy 04:32, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. The changes improved the article greatly, but I'd like to see one more picture: something between the '69 and the '05 - maybe a picture of a model from the 1980s (even though I wasn't terribly fond of that design, it'd kind of bridge the gap in terms of pictures). RADICALBENDER★ 15:46, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Another great tip...thanks, Bender. There are now BBS photos of a '78, an '85 and a '99. Anyone have a good photo of the 1971-1973 version? Lucky 6.9 00:36, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • Cool. I think it looks good. I support this as well. RADICALBENDER★ 02:43, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I did some copyediting and broke up some paras. I think it should be featured. RickK 01:37, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • There are still obvious POV issues with this article where subjective opinions are asserted without objective justification (these may be true assertions, but there's nothing to substantiate them in the article, and the choice of words is promotional). A few examples:
    "It was the most successful product launch in automotive history, setting off near-pandemonium at Ford dealers across the continent."
    "Looking like a car that cost hundreds of dollars more ..."
    "An enormous list of options ..."
    "it could be ordered from "mild to wild", ..."
    "The Boss Is Back" as a section header
  • Also, is there no other POV than a promotional one (is there no history of factory recalls, for example)? - Bevo 15:21, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Per my e-mail response to Bevo, all of the points mentioned are based in fact and can easily be further substantiated. Stories abound of the "near-pandemonium" mentioned in the first paragraph, and the option list was among the most comprehensive of all time. I'd be glad to expand on any of the objections raised, but I respectfully submit that listing factory recalls would be answering a question that no one is asking. I think there's an Internet site that lists recall history on virtually any car ever made, so a link is certainly an option. Regarding the POV objection, very little negative press was written about the early car, but increased through the years leading up to the 1979 model. That's not to say early criticism isn't out there. I've seen it and I'd welcome the opportunity to see more. For example, I can say with certainty that most history books I've read have less than glowing reviews of the Boss 429. Out of the box it was slower and more expensive than the 428 Super Cobra Jet. Thanks again, Bevo, and please know your criticism is most appreciated. Lucky 6.9 22:44, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I like it. Support. →Raul654 23:09, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Good article. I support - Moby 11:32, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Added to the Technology section. Chris Roy 21:01, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ford_Mustang/archive1&oldid=1251591079"