Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/AMC AMX III/1

AMC AMX III

The following discussion 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.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2021 listing contains poor sources and poor sourcing, extremely poor grammar - specifically in the “History of development” - and this page was completely copied from the German Wikipedia version, which is an “excellent article” on that site, but we know that what classifies as “good” on that site is a lot softer than the English WP. This page obviously did not undergo a thorough review, and will need a heavy copy and sourcing edit. 750h+ | Talk 10:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I reviewed this article, I checked each individual reference that was cited, both to verify the claim and to assess its reliability as a source. If you don't like the refs, that is one thing, but to say it "obviously did not undergo a thorough review" is not true. I am given to understand that there was some attribution issue with this article's translation -- but this is easy to fix by noting the attribution in the edit history, and does really seem relevant otherwise. jp×g 🗯️ 10:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copying and pasting one of the paragraphs from the article: “The decision to outsource the development and production of the AMX/3 to European operations was made for financial reasons. Management hoped to keep production and sales prices low in this way. Series production was to be undertaken by the German coachbuilder Karmann, who, in Rheine, had been assembling AMC Javelins destined for Europe since 1968 from disassembled parts kits.The schematics called for increasing production of the AMX/3 to 1,000, after an initial run of 24 cars, and according to other sources, as many as 5,000 annually. They would be marketed in the US and Europe. Other sources suggest that AMC initially targeted building 5,000 cars annually and later reduced this to 24 cars yearly. The estimated retail price was to be US$10,000 to $12,000 . Although not in the same category, this was about three times that of a contemporary mass-market Ford Mustang base model. A more equivalent two-seat mid-engine GT car, a Ferrari 365 GTB/4 "Daytona" was offered for US$19,900 [33]” is an example of bad punctuation and grammar. I’ve checked a few of the sources throughout the article too, and they do not verify what is being said. “In the autumn of 1968”; considering this page was almost entirely copied from the German Wikipedia, how are we supposed to know what it’s talking about? No offence, but I highly doubt you did a thorough review of each and every one of the 104 sources in the article.

Also, I realised this article did undergo a featured article candidacy. A comment by Buidhe states, “Referencing needs a lot of work, both in terms of formatting and use of unreliable sources/OR with various self-published websites and photographs of cars all being cited to support text.” which I 100 per cent agree with. Another comment by a coordinator says “as well as Buidhe's concerns, I note some statements that are not cited at all, and others that editorialise, e.g. "What is certain is that in the summer of 1970 AMC..." So as well as improving sourcing, a good copyedit is probably in order, it might also remove seasonal references like the one in this statement. After that I'd recommend trying peer review before considering a re-nom at FAC.” IMO, some questionable references include The Truth About Cars, amx3.org, the Ultimate Car Page, Supercars.net, Sports Car Market, drivetribe.com (dead link), www.amx390.com, among others. This would be a quick fail if I were the reviewer.

In all, referencing needs heavy work, some unverifiable text may have to be deleted, and prose could use come copyediting too-but this could easily be fixed, as you mentioned. If you do plan to fix up the page, as CZmarlin is currently doing, you’re going to need an experienced editor/reviewer to come check the page for verification-every source. 750h+ | Talk 06:16, 24 March 2024 (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.