Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/American automobile industry in the 1950s/1

American automobile industry in the 1950s

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

Result pending

There is uncited text in the article, including some tagged with "citation needed" since March 2023 and a very large paragraph. History.com is used as a source, which is considered unreliable on Wikipedia (WP:RSPHISTORY), while "Auto Universum" and "supercars.net" might not be considered reliable. Z1720 (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to assist soon. 750 h+ 03:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly which sentences are being called into question? It's hard to address if you aren't specific, particularly in a reassessment of a GA. For instance: "Like many similar cars of the time it was not operational, except for the electrical components such as the motorized trunk and front hood, although some of its innovations appeared later in the Lincoln Premiere.{{r|supercars}}" all that is being cited is the fact that many of the features of the concept car Mercury XM-800 were non-functional, which is very common with a concept car (being a non-production model created for "looks" and promotion only). I wouldn't find it so controversial or contentious of a claim that would require more robust citations. 14.1.92.115 (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC) (aka, dennis)[reply]
If the issue is whether the Premiere later had these features, <ref name="flory2008">{{cite book|last=Flory Jr.|first=J. "Kelly"|title=American Cars, 1946-1959 Every Model Every Year|year=2008|publisher=McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers|isbn=978-0-7864-3229-5}}</ref> is in the Premier article establishing that. 14.1.92.115 (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added "citation needed" tags to the places that need citations. Some of these instances include entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: seeming as the article saw significant vandalism over the 11 years as a GA, i restored the only bad section, "Innovations", back to its 2013 condition, albeit with changes to make it GA worthy. What do you think 750 h+ 16:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@750h+: I added some cn tags. There are some cite errors that should be resolved. " "The 1950s". The History Channel." is not a reliable source and should be replaced or its information removed. Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: fixed. 750 h+ 17:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's one more cite error at the bottom of the references, but other than that I think all of my concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Dennis Brown logged out, btw (wikibreak, but saw the notice for this on my talk page). I've commented out the "history" ref for now. While it might now pass WP:RS, I'm not sure that makes it completely useless for trivial citations. I would say after the clean up, it is worth keeping the GA. It has seen a lot of less than stellar editing over the years, but I try to be careful to not look like I WP:own it when policing it. Thanks, 750h+, for the clean up. 14.1.92.115 (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]