Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: Wikipedia's page for the Mirage / Space Star is not good. UPDATE: it's better!

  1. #21
    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).


        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log 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)


  2. #22
    Moderator Eggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    10,120
    Thanks
    4,030
    Thanked 2,781 Times in 2,100 Posts
    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.

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log 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)


  3. #23
    Moderator Eggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    10,120
    Thanks
    4,030
    Thanked 2,781 Times in 2,100 Posts
    Has the updates to the Reception section of the Wikipedia page for the Mirage swayed anyone's opinion on these cars?

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log 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)


  4. #24
    Still Plays With Cars Loren's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Florida
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    1,225
    Thanks
    324
    Thanked 936 Times in 539 Posts
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •