Revision as of 06:24, 20 May 2010 editRetran (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,318 editsm →Listing of awards and slogan in lead: clarification of idea← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:25, 20 May 2010 edit undoRetran (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,318 editsm →Listing of awards and slogan in lead: grammarNext edit → | ||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
:Thanks for your suggestions, the awards and slogan have been there for quite a long time, and if you look at a number of company articles, the slogan is included (e.g. ], ], ]). However, the slogan has been removed from other articles, so I don't see a problem with removing it here. As for the awards, the reliability awards stand as a U.S. record which no other auto brand has come close to achieving (14x), but it is not a major part of the article body anyhow, per ] so makes sense to integrate them into body. It would be helpful if the guidelines on slogan integration were more specific too. Assuming good faith, thanks.] (]) 18:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC) | :Thanks for your suggestions, the awards and slogan have been there for quite a long time, and if you look at a number of company articles, the slogan is included (e.g. ], ], ]). However, the slogan has been removed from other articles, so I don't see a problem with removing it here. As for the awards, the reliability awards stand as a U.S. record which no other auto brand has come close to achieving (14x), but it is not a major part of the article body anyhow, per ] so makes sense to integrate them into body. It would be helpful if the guidelines on slogan integration were more specific too. Assuming good faith, thanks.] (]) 18:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
::Thanks SynergyStar for the work on updating the discussion ideas into the article; but now you have me convinced that there is something notable enough about the awards to include a mention in some way in the intro. I would agree its notable to achieve a reliability record that none other has achieved, and that fact is beyond marketing hyperbole. Perhaps |
::Thanks SynergyStar for the work on updating the discussion ideas into the article; but now you have me convinced that there is something notable enough about the awards to include a mention in some way in the intro. I would agree its notable to achieve a reliability record that none other has achieved, and that fact is beyond marketing hyperbole. Perhaps integrating that fact as a sentence in one of the intro paragraphs, then relying on it being expounded upon (as it already is) further in the body would do the would keep a mention of the reliability record consistent with ]. ] (]) 06:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:25, 20 May 2010
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lexus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
Lexus has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
Automobiles GA‑class High‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Long article?
Isn't this article way too long? It seems like some new pages should be split off from it. I realise it would be some work. Don't know if there are official guidelines for this. --81.179.93.205 (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe some sections could be split off... Octave8 (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Oceanea ...
...is noit a part of Asia. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
- This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Lexus/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
I will be doing the GA Reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps project.
There are some dead links that need to be repaired: 95, 96, 125, 126, 131, 165, 193, and 203. I fixed some overlinking issues. The writing is fine, the images are good with Fair use rationale where necessary, the lead is solid. Overall the article is great! If it weren't for all the deadlinks I would pass it without hesitation. I will hold the article for a week pending work on the references. If you need to contact me please do so at my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review and suggestions; the links have been fixed or replaced. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Everything looks good, the article is GA. H1nkles (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Current quality issues
The current issue on the accelerating and brakes of Certain models has been more that reported. there has been a nation wide recall on certain Es and GX models for Lexus. Many people are panicking, they need to realize that it is not all Lexus models being recalled. However, it is a very serious issue. if your vehicle is one of the models that has been recalled your dealer will be sending you a notice, you will need to take your vehicle in for repairs. If you have any further questions you can call (800) 255-3987. Do you think current safety and quality issues, the car accelerating out of control, should be reported? http://my.is/forums/f104/stuck-accelerator-lexus-kills-family-398078/ http://www.justicenewsflash.com/2009/09/01/runaway-lexus-kills-4_200909012035.html http://kansascity.injuryboard.com/automobile-accidents/toyota-denied-customer-complaints-on-sudden-acceleration-problem-for-more-than-5-years.aspx?googleid=274028 http://www.autosafety.org/again-nhtsa-probes-sudden-acceleration
--Aizuku (talk) 07:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Very sad accident, the wrong floor mat was used (added to the ES article). SynergyStar (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks to IP 134.154.170.210 for your information, however from current news reports, the GX is not affected by the Toyota recalls, and aside from the floor mat fix, the ES has not been further involved. Also help phone #s and dealer service info probably would be more helpful elsewhere, because this page is not intended for general discussion. Thanks SynergyStar (talk) 08:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Listing of awards and slogan in lead
I notice there's a listing of awards in the intro paragraph. Is there reason to include them, and if there is, why are they included in the introduction? Would it be more appropriate to have the list of notable awards included in the Marketing or other section? Toyota marked cars, and many other makes have received many similar recognitions yet do not have them included in their article intro. Seems like an NPOV issue that so much weight is given to them in the intro.--Retran (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Also why is there a little orphan sentence regarding the "motto". That should definitely be included in the Marketing section!--Retran (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suggestions, the awards and slogan have been there for quite a long time, and if you look at a number of company articles, the slogan is included (e.g. Volkswagen, Gillette, Continental Airlines). However, the slogan has been removed from other articles, so I don't see a problem with removing it here. As for the awards, the reliability awards stand as a U.S. record which no other auto brand has come close to achieving (14x), but it is not a major part of the article body anyhow, per WP:LEAD so makes sense to integrate them into body. It would be helpful if the guidelines on slogan integration were more specific too. Assuming good faith, thanks.SynergyStar (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks SynergyStar for the work on updating the discussion ideas into the article; but now you have me convinced that there is something notable enough about the awards to include a mention in some way in the intro. I would agree its notable to achieve a reliability record that none other has achieved, and that fact is beyond marketing hyperbole. Perhaps integrating that fact as a sentence in one of the intro paragraphs, then relying on it being expounded upon (as it already is) further in the body would do the would keep a mention of the reliability record consistent with WP:LEAD. Retran (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)