Talk:Detroit Automobile Company/GA1

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   (a) The prose is alright, I have done some small copyediting to it. In the demise section it is unclear how this company that floundered and was dissolved could become Cadillac; was it the plant and assets? (b) There should be an infobox in this article, for instance {{Infobox Defunct company}}. Even without an infobox the image is preferred in the top right.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Ref 1 link is dead. Ref 9 lacks information on title. The rest of the references are verified.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is very short; while this is not a reason in itself to not gain GA status, this shortness is combined with a lack of detail on many aspects of the company—especially the automobiles themselves. Some articles fall into a scope that cannot be sufficiently documented to achieve GA status, and this article may just be one of those. There are ample references, I suggest that more scrutiny be used to find sufficient background on the cars if GA status is to be reached.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I am concerned about the table; since this is from the catalog, it is inherently NPOV. There is nothing wrong with stating that the company claims that the car is a lot cheaper than a horse and vehicle, but keep it more subtle; remember that 100 year old NPOV is still NPOV and this table seems to be propagandizing more than necessary. If you want to include the costs of running the car, I would instead suggestion doing it in line.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am sorry to fail this article, but it lacks sufficient flesh on the bone. It is well referenced and written, but lacks even mediocre depth coverage of any aspect of its products; despite numerous sources being cited. I would suggest a focusing on expanding the article, in particular related to the automobiles themselves. As a whole there are many smaller details that need attention; I hope I have addressed them here. The article is interesting and I did enjoy reading about this company, ~so I hope to see many more interesting articles from you. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)