Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Plug-in hybrid/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:59, 24 July 2007.

Plug-in hybrid[edit]

First FAC nom

Second nomination: This article is about a very important development in the automobile industry which promises to have a substantial impact on petroleum demand and greenhouse gas emissions. About three months ago I started an ad-hoc improvement drive just as some experts decided on their own to improve it. Two months ago, it underwent peer review, and all the issues raised and suggestions for improvement were followed. The result over the ensuing weeks stabilized into what I thought was a very well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral article. However, the comments from the first nomination last month pointed out many minor issues and some serious problems, not all of which I was able to fix. So, I withdrew that nomination. Thanks to other editors, all of the issues of which I'm aware have been fixed. In the mean time it was accepted by the editorial team for Version 0.7, and rated "A" class on WikiProject Automobiles' quality scale. So, I'm nominating it again. BenB4 21:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support well written, well sourced. --trey 02:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose—1c; there is quite a bit of uncited hard data (examples only in Fuel efficiency and Operating costs), and sources aren't completely, correctly and consistently formatted (see WP:CITE/ES). Last access date and publisher should be given on all websources, and author and publication date should be given when available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask which statements you find unsupported? I know those sections take many facts from certain sources which makes it too likely that the citation might come a ways after the statement belonging to it. You might want to try the next one or two citations after the facts you are concerned about, even though they may be in the next paragraph, and see if you can verify them there. I assure you several subject matter experts have been over those sections with fine-toothed combs. As for the citation formats, I will address those in the next few days. BenB4 07:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back for another look: citations are still not formatted completely. There are several missing publishers (see WP:CITE/ES). When examining a random source with no publisher identified, I find it to be a source of questionable reliability ([1]); this is why all publishers should be identified and why I am switching to Strong oppose. Reliability of sources must be apparent. Also, all websources should have last access dates. External links should be pruned per WP:EL, WP:NOT, WP:RS. Month-day combos should be wikilinked per WP:MOSNUM. Some prose is stubby: Advanced battery technology is under development.[34][35][36] Battery life expectancy is expected to increase.[37] (Why three refs to substantiate development?) The {{convert}} template should be used to express units of measurement in km as well as miles. Still more work needed here; keep going, but please identify publishers and make sure sources are reliable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by missing publishers. The word "publisher" appears only once in WP:CITE/ES, under books. Perhaps if you listed the reference numbers that you have a problem with, it would help me see what's missing (please.) The calcars-news email is actually a reliable source per WP:RS, because the author is the director and founder of CalCars, who is recognized widely as an independent expert in the field, and he's just forwarding a press release. I just went through every single reference, and the only ones without last-accessed dates are URLs to copies of printed publications. The month-day dates were all linked last FAC, but new dates got in without linking -- I will fix those right away. There are three references for development because someone added them -- as I recall they had corporate names and project descriptions but someone shortened them to the stubby statement because the details weren't considered to be within the scope of the article. I guess they stayed that way; I'll take a couple out. {{convert}} looks like a monumental undertaking; I'll try. BenB4 00:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how else to answer your questions, since I'm not understanding what you're not understanding, and the sample above should be clear. Look in your article, and notice that almost all (but not all) of your sources (the information you've include in between ref tags, often using cite templates) have a field identified in the cite template as either "publisher" or "work", or include information about the publisher of the website or information. We need to know the publisher of all sources. The sample I gave above is missing a publisher, and a Yahoo message board is not a reliable source; how do you know the message board poster cited the press release correctly and didn't alter it? Did you see the press release yourself? I'm sorry, it's so clear to me that I don't know how else to explain this. Some random samples:

(No publisher - who published this list ??) Current list of Prius PHEV conversions as of May 2007 there are at least 35 Prius PHEV conversions.
(Publisher, date and access date) Electric Auto Association (2007) "Battery Pack Configurations" Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehicle website, accessed April 25, 2007
(no access date) Synovate (August 16, 2006) "Survey shows 49% of consumers would consider buying a plug-in hybrid"
(what is this? wikis are generally not reliable) EAA-PHEV wiki: Mixed-mode accessed April 29, 2007

Although I don't usually recommend this, if you don't know how to format references consistently and correctly, you can use the cite templates throughout; the article uses some cite templates and has some manually formatted refs, so isn't consistent. (And PLEASE identify PDFs; I just had to restart my computer.) As to convert, the article can't be only in miles; kilometers and needed, and the convert template will deal with that as well as nowrap and WP:UNITS at the same time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the press release, the publisher is Business Wire, and I updated the reference to show that. The author of the email is Felix Kramer, the founder and director of the California Cars Initiative, who is a reliable source per WP:RS because he is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (e.g. [2]). The only reason we're using the mailing list URL is because Business Wire URLs apparently only last for a year, and the direct link doesn't work any more. Responding to your bullet points in turn:

You are absolutely right about the conversion list reference -- I have fixed it, and I apologize for overlooking it.
This seems perfectly clear to me: publisher=Electric Auto Association, date=2007, accessed=April 25, 2007 -- I do not see the issue.

Correct; that's why I listed it as an example of a ref that did give a publisher :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Synovate survey was part of a paper publication but I will add an accessed date anyway.
The EAA wiki is being cited for itself, not for containing any fact. The text says that the EAA established a wiki for conversion information, and the reference is that wiki. Should it be linked inline instead of in a footnote?

That seems preferable to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links to PDF files show up with Adobe PDF icons in both Firefox and IE for me. I am working on {{convert}} and hope to have it done in a day or two. BenB4 09:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't show up in all old browsers; I get had when I'm on an old laptop. It's good to indicate them for other users who may be using old browsers. Striking some above; please ping me when you're ready for a new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue to be addressed is the lead. It should be a compelling, stand-alone summary of the entire article (see WP:LEAD). Rather than summarizing the article, it contains detail that isn't discussed elsewhere in the article, which necessitates the introduction of citations to fairly uncontroversial statements in the lead. Reworking the lead to a summary will lower the need to cite uncontroversial info in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support - Informative and engaging. Will support once the cn tags are replaced by refs. --mav 04:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Two of the fact-tagged statements were actually sourced from the next reference at the end of their respective paragraphs; deleted two unsourced statements; added refs for the rest. BenB4 16:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All hard data should be cited; you can accomplish this easily by using named refs. Since a lot of this is data that may change over time, covering citations with one cite in a later paragraph isn't the best way to handle it; future editors need to know the exact source of hard data, should text change or be moved around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I added cite needed tags as discussed in my original post, as the citations for hard data haven't yet been provided.~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done At present, all the cn tags have been replaced by sources. BenB4 16:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support A hot topic. User:BenB4 has done a great job cleaning up the references. Daniel.Cardenas 17:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support An accurate and timely article on important emerging technology. Much credit to User:BenB4 for all the work towards cleaning up the article! --D0li0 12:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Has "citation needed" tags. Spamsara 11:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done the first two were obviously from "the same study" as the text stated; the other one is sourced to a DoE report. BenB4 13:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Back for another look: old cite tags have been addressed, but there's a new, unsourced paragraph. Are you planning to work on the lead?~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Added the ref. Which statements in the lead aren't summarizing the article? I think the only part is the list of vehicle types, but those were left in the first paragraph because they were definitional. All of the other statements, including the entire second and third paragraphs, are summaries of other parts of the article. BenB4 18:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I struck my Oppose since most issues have been addressed. The sentence in the lead that is still troubling me is:
    - While PHEVs are usually passenger vehicles, they can also be commercial passenger vans,[1] utility trucks,[2][3] school buses,[4] scooters,[5] and military vehicles.[6]
  - I don't find mention of supporting text in the body of the article (perhaps I missed it?), and those seem like fairly uncontroversial facts, not warranting cluttering the lead with citations. I was hoping you'd find a way to address that content in the body of the article, so that the lead didn't have to be cluttered with citations for uncontroversial statements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree those look terrible. They are what I was referring to about the list of vehicle types. I will see if I can find a way to move the references copying the sentence to another part of the article. I think there may be a good place to put it. BenB4 20:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Done moved the refs to Commercialization. BenB4 00:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the patenting issues need more legal commentary - in at least some countries, technologies cannot be suppressed by the patent holder; often, companies can sue to obtain a license from the patent holder, especially in cases where the patent holder is not using the technology, as seems to be the case here. Spamsara 21:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article just repeats what the sources say. In the US at least, you can sit on a patent and force everyone else to refrain from using it if you want. BenB4 04:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is what people say. And I happen to think what people say is incorrect. For an FA, we'll need some better authority. Spamsara 04:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The author of the book source in this case, Sherry Boschert, has been a reporter for Elsevier since 1991, and is president of the San Francisco Electric Vehicle Association. Her book is based on interviews of primary sources.[3] There is widespread agreement with her.[4] There is no question that Ovonics aggressively litigated their NiMH patents,[5] causing Toyota to withdraw their RAV4-EV. Do you know of any sources which contradict this? BenB4 16:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is a section in this article entitled, "patent encumbrance of NiMH batteries" which closes with the statement "Chevron and other oil-related interests suppressed the technology to forestall the introduction of plug-in hybrids". I'm sorry, but I don't see where you have any insight into the motives of Chevron. "to forestall the introduction of plug-in hybrids" - how do you know that this was their intention? Maybe they just saw what the intellectual property was worth, and bought it for that reason? Please show me how you can refute this alternative.
        Again, that is exactly what the Boschert book says. It's not my insight, it's hers, based on her interviews. Do you have any reason to believe that she is not a reliable source? BenB4 02:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Referring specifically to your sources, it seems by the last source you cited in your comment above that a licensing agreement was reached which would allow Toyota to distribute said batteries commencing July 1, 2007, and certain batteries for certain applications at a commercial scale commencing July 1, 2010. There is no detail on exactly what kinds of batteries each refers to, but it's clear that a licensing agreement exists: "ECD and Ovonic Battery will receive a non-refundable patent license fee of $10 million in consideration of the licenses granted to MEI/PEVE with respect to NiMH batteries for consumer applications. Cobasys will receive a non-refundable patent license fee of $20 million in consideration of the licenses granted to MEI/PEVE and Toyota, of which $4 million will be placed in escrow to be used to pay PEVE upon reaching certain milestones under the next-generation high-performance NiMH battery module development project plan." Protecting your intellectual property is not the same as "forestalling the introduction of plug-in hybrids" by deliberate and malevolent "patent encumbrance" and "suppression of technology". Please change the wording to reflect what your sources actually support. Thank you. Spamsara 01:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The statement as it stands reflects Boschert's book accurately. The license was granted after it became clear that lithium ion batteries were more attractive for automotive applications. I think the statement should stay in unless you have a source which contradicts it. Speculation isn't an acceptable substitute for reliable sources. BenB4 02:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll admit that I don't have immediate access to the book to see what it contains. However, since you bring up the issue of reliability of sources, I would say that one of the sites you referenced above, evworld (where ev stands for "electric vehicle") can reasonably be assumed to reflect a particular POV. My feeling is that you may have to be a little more specific about exactly the evidence is that Boschert brings forward. It's not that I disagree with the general notion that it's difficult to establish a new technology that conflicts with a multi-billion dollar industry, I would only like it to be clear what is fact and what is Boschert's POV. It seems that all the arguments you've brought forward to far I've been able to fairly easily take apart, and the problem is that if the accused object to the phrasing of the article and contect WP:OFFICE, you may find that your article will get far more heavily censored than if you had done it yourself. Please make sure that everything you say is 100% defendable, and please clearly state "Boschert argues..." where this is appropriate. Remember that Wikipedia is not about THE TRUTH (tm), but only about verifiable fact, extreme accuracy, due balance, and proper attribution. Let's please get this article nice and clean, and if that is by laying out in more detail what the evidence is that Boschert brings forward, with direct attribution, and making clear what valid alternative interpretations are. For instance, licenses are often granted only after an infringement has become apparent. Nice and clean, please. Regards, Spamsara 03:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Done I checked to make sure the statement accurately reflects what is said in the book, and I added "According to San Francisco Electric Vehicle Association President Sherry Boschert," in front of the controversial statement. BenB4 04:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.