This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Automobiles High‑importance 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 articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment: Green vehicle Top‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Green vehicle task force. Brands Low‑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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is transcluded from Talk:General Motors EV1/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: 750h+ (talk · contribs) 01:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 21:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at sources first.

• eBookit is a self-publishing company; we would need another reason to treat Edwards as reliable.
• replaced
• Similarly fox Xlibris (Ingersoll) and Lulu (Mortimer).

replaced both

• What makes greencarcongress.com a reliable source? It looks like a one-man operation.

replaced with a Times Colonist source

• Not necessarily a GA problem, but are FNs 122 and 128 really different sources?

fixed

Will do spotchecks next, though that may not be today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie that should be good 750h+ 05:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All struck; I went ahead and removed Mortimer from the sources list. I should be able to get to the spotchecks tonight or tomorrow morning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

• FN 63 cites "Traditionally vehicles use heat produced by the engine to heat the passenger compartment. But since electric vehicles generate minimal waste heat, an alternative solution had to be conceived. GM opted for a heat pump to regulate the temperature inside the EV1, consuming a third of the energy required by a traditional unit for both cooling and heating. Nevertheless the system effectively warmed passengers only when temperatures exceed 30 °C (86 °F). To address colder climates, upcoming electric vehicles were anticipated to incorporate heat pumps alongside compact fuel-fired heaters." The source has "Conventional vehicles use heat generated by the engine to warm the passenger compartment. But because there is little waste heat in an electric vehicle, another solution had to be found. GM turned to a heat pump to cool and heat the EV1’s interior using a third of the energy of a conventional unit. However, the system will keep passengers warm only in temperatures above 30 degrees ... For colder climates, future electric vehicles are expected to use heat pumps in combination with small fuel-fired heaters." This is essentially the same as the source, with a few words changed. This needs to be rewritten without using the source's sentence structure, per WP:CLOP.
• FN 103 cites "The Williams APU had the capability to operate on either compressed natural gas or gasoline. According to GM's assertions, the vehicle could attain 60 miles per US gallon (3.9 L/100 km; 72 mpg‑imp) when running on the latter, offering a total range of 390 miles (630 km). Conversely when operating solely in electric mode, it was estimated to achieve a range of 40 miles (64 km)." The source has "the Williams APU was capable of running on compressed natural gas or gasoline. GM claimed the car could achieve 60 mpg running on the latter, with a total range of 390 miles. Alternatively, it would achieve 40 miles running solely in electric mode." Same problem here.
• FN 71 cites "Efforts to minimize weight extended to most of the components of the car, including the incorporation of magnesium in the frames of the seats." The source has "Efforts to reduce weight extended to the little bits in the car, including the use of magnesium in the seat frames." Same problem again.
• FN 54 cites "On March 2, 2000 GM issued a recall for 450 first generation EV1s. The automaker had determined that a faulty charge port cable could eventually build up enough heat to catch on fire." The source does not give the date of the recall, nor does it mention a faulty charge port cable.

I'm sorry, 750h+; this seems like a well-researched article, but when four out of four spotchecks fail, I have no choice but to fail the article. I recommend going through the sources and making sure there are no close paraphrasing problems remaining before renominating, as well as checking for problems such as the unsourced details in the final point above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was a pretty old article anyways, I mostly wanted to see the result. Thanks for the review nonetheless 750h+ 02:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]