Talk:Audi V8

Audi V8 was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 28, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed
July 6, 2013	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bavaria Low‑importance

	Bavaria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bavaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bavaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BavariaWikipedia:WikiProject BavariaTemplate:WikiProject BavariaBavaria
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Automobiles Low‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sales

Some reasons, perhaps, that the V8 was not the sales success it could have been:
1) Brand counts for a lot in this market segment with Mercedes, BMW & Jaguar all having a loyal customer base who would have possibly been reluctant to change to a non-established (in that segment) brand.
2) The V8 offered features not particularly sought after in that segment i.e. 4WD and a galvanised bodyshell were not then market expectations for that vehicle class, therefore buyers may have been reluctant to pay for these. Furthermore, that class of car was expected to offer high refinement (ride quality & low noise (NVH)) and a high quality interior which the V8 did not compete against the established sellers. LewisR 00:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think it's neutral enough to just state in the article that the audi in many respects was a better car than Lexus LS400, Mercedes S-Class and BMW 7-Series. It should be explained further. The fact that it had four wheel drive is not a good arguement alone to support such claim. The Lexus LS400, for instance, had superior engine technology, smoothness and durability to the audi V8, hence there are different advantages with each car in this class. Therefore, stating that the audi is superior requires a lot more explaination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.255.35 (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Deleted all of those statements.SHAMAN 20:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Production figures by year and dimensions of long wheelbase version

~~I'd like to create nice table with production figures by year like it's here: Mercedes-Benz W126#Production figures, but have no data, doees anyone now how to find such information?~~

Another thing is to find exact dimensions of normal and long wheelbase version, unfortunately sources on the internet vary in that matter, perhaps someone know where to find original owner's manual? Shaman (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Done.SHAMAN 20:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Audi V8/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jappalang (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
~~On hold, not reviewing and failing within 7 days if reliable sources are not used.~~ More than 7 days have passed without an attempt to resolve issues

The principle of Wikipedia is verifiable information from reliable sources. Typically, this means that the sources of information for automobiles are motoring publications (books and magazines), or from widely acknowledged experts in the field (people often quoted by those said publications for their opinions). Most of the sources in this article are not reliable by those means. Fansites (AudiV8.com, Audistory.24max), a site that states "The specifications for this 1993 Audi V8 Lang car are presented for your information only and no guarantees as to their accuracy can be given. Use this data entirely at your own risk." (carfolio), and a wiki (AudiFans) are just a few striking examples of this (theere are others still). Please look for published reviews and reports on the vehicle for this article. Several uncited information (such as "Interesting fact is that those DTM cars retained walnut wood trim on doors and dashboard. They are currently preserved and are exhibited in Audi Forum museums in Inglostadt and Neckarsulm, racing on occasion at special events.") are original research (not substantiated by reliable sources). It is pointless to review text content when the information could be unsubstantiated and may have to be removed. Some of the images seems to have been transferred from wiki to wiki, and no trail (transfer history) is provided to verify that the original licensing has been followed. Jappalang (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More than 7 days have passed, and no work was attempted; with serious issues like unreliable sourcing in this article, this cannot be a GA. Jappalang (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Audi V8/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Suri 100 (talk · contribs) 11:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing this article. I put the article on hold for following reasons:-

I strongly suggest that lead section should be expanded if possible. Also, in the lead section, it is written that audi won two titles which needs to be proved.

Further, ref no.11 is a broken link.

Status:- On hold. So i am keeping this article on hold for 7 days.

After these issues are addressed, i will further do review. Suri 100 (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section has been expanded, with the motorsport section receiving particular attention. As for ref 11, it works perfectly here, and the checklinks tool doesn't indicate a problem. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting the article for a second opinion as i have less expertise in dealing with the technicalities with this article. The article would be reviewed further soon. Suri 100 (talk) 06:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify the issue you need a second opinion on? Glad to offer one if I can. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khazar2, at this point, you might want to simply take over the review. Suri 100 (now named Suresh 5) hasn't responded despite almost two weeks having passed. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very pleased if you do, Khazar. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can do. The previous review doesn't appear very thorough so far, so I'll start from scratch. Detailed comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks to everybody for their work on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Thanks for your patience in waiting for me to return. My overall impression is that this article does a good job of detailing the various parts of the Audi V8, but I don't believe the "main aspects" of the subject are yet covered as required by the GA criteria. There's almost no discussion of the car's development process, reception, sales, or role in Audi's history. The Audi V8's reception by reviewers, for example, is relevant and readily available in articles like this one. I'm also concerned with the quality of the sourcing throughout the article; most of the information appears to be sourced to self-published Audi fan sites, rather than reliable secondary sources. Other sources include a bulletin board thread and a user-submitted photograph, which clearly don't pass muster. The catalog numbers of various parts, in contrast, seem to me a level of detail unneeded for an encyclopedia article (a problem under criterion 3b). Some minor work should also be done for layout to address the large number of small sections.

Since the nominator doesn't appear to have edited the article yet aside from responding to the comment above, I'm going to close this review for now and suggest that more work be done before renomination. I'd start out by gathering reliable sources on the subject--how do publications like newspapers, magazines, or reference works describe the car? That will give this a stronger start. Thanks for your work on this so far, and good luck in rewriting and renominating it! Please let me know if you have any questions or if there's any other way I can offer assistance. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More detailed comments:

"Notably," -- should be cut as minor editorializing per WP:WTW
"Audi's famous quattro all wheel drive" -- "famous" should be cut as peacocking per WP:PEA
"The Audi V8 created a new elevated image for the company, providing a viable alternative to established competitors such as Mercedes-Benz.[8] In this regard, the car was a cornerstone in developing the history of the Audi marque as it is today.[8]" -- I'm not sure http://www.audiv8.com/ is enough of a reliable source to support these statements.
http://www.audistory.24max.de/old1/html/ed1.htm seems unlikely to be a reliable source
http://www.audifans.com/kb/V8_(model) seems unlikely to be a reliable source
Is http://www.traumautoarchiv.de/ a reliable source?
"These new designs would set the pattern for future Audi-developed Volkswagen Group V8 engines. As well as using an all-aluminum alloy for the cylinder block (when the established material was grey cast iron), the camshafts were driven using a hybrid method. A rubber/kevlar toothed timing belt, driven from the front of the crankshaft drives only the exhaust camshaft in each bank. The inlet camshafts are then driven via a simplex roller chain from the exhaust camshaft - the right bank, (cylinders 1-4) at the rear of the engine, and the left bank (cylinders 5-8) at the front of the engine, immediately behind the timing belt. This method effectively reduced the complexity of the timing belt layout (known to be very complex on DOHC V engines), and as a result, required fewer components (idler rollers and guides), leading to easier and less costly maintenance of the timing belt and associated components." -- this section seems to move from past to present tense to past again.
"Audi's now proven 'trademark' quattro " -- what do you mean by calling this a proven trademark? It sounds like POV language, but I may not be grasping the point.
"The rear axle final drive unit (parts code prefix: 017; identification codes: AFV, AXZ) " -- giving the parts code seems like extraneous detail here; this should be an overview of the car rather than a catalog.
"It is important to note though " -- should be deleted per WP:WTW
The subheaders under "Engines" aren't necessary, and should be deleted per WP:LAYOUT, which discourages short subsections. This could read as one three-paragraph section without any difficulty to the reader.
uploading pictures to verify a point, as at fn 17 (File:V8Quattro.JPG, is clearly original research. If the sources don't find it worth mentioning, it's probably not.
The subheaders under "Transmission" aren't necessary, per the above.
but mounted the caliper inside the disc - and often coined the phrase "UFO brakes" -- the prose gets extremely confusing here. The fronts mounted the caliper inside the disc, and the fronts often coined the phrase "UFO brakes"? I don't understand what this means.
I'm not clear what ""ronal sourced wheels" means--since this seems to be the only use of the phrase in all of Google, I wonder if there's an error here, or if a better phrase could be found.
"The Audi V8 came standard with a range of usually optional features, " -- does this part have a citation, or is this simply interpretation? -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Body style

The article claims the "one-off experimental Avant (estate) version" is no longer on display at the Audi Forum in Ingolstadt, but this is incorrect. I was just there today and saw it on the large rotating carousel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.5.47.1 (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Audi V8. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]