Might also be worth adding the fact that owner reviews tend to be excellent (eg. KBB... not sure if there are other sites like that one).
Might also be worth adding the fact that owner reviews tend to be excellent (eg. KBB... not sure if there are other sites like that one).
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2014 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 63.2 mpg (US) ... 26.9 km/L ... 3.7 L/100 km ... 75.9 mpg (Imp)
This has been covered - somewhat. Look over the Revision History (tab found at top of page) and see the exchange for 17 Feb 2018 and you'll see what I mean.
It'll take some thought to present the info in a way that is factual and from a neutral point of view.
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2015 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 49.6 mpg (US) ... 21.1 km/L ... 4.7 L/100 km ... 59.5 mpg (Imp)
Has the updates to the Reception section of the Wikipedia page for the Mirage swayed anyone's opinion on these cars?
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2015 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 49.6 mpg (US) ... 21.1 km/L ... 4.7 L/100 km ... 59.5 mpg (Imp)
I'd look at other car pages on Wikipedia. Do they even include "reception"?
Perhaps try to surrepticiously delete (or maybe start by renaming) that section? Replace it with something like "Awards", or whatever is more common on other car pages.
If you did Awards, then you can focus on the positive. I think every car suffers from some negative reviews... they generally aren't the focus of a large chunk of their Wiki article!
Looking at the MX-5 page, they have an awards section and a production numbers section. I think the whole "reception" thing is irrelevant.
Simplify and add lightness.