Talk:Holden Monaro
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Holden Monaro is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale. | |
[edit] Specification
I think the body type convertible should be removed - the convertible (and wasn't it gorgeous) was a one off show car.
Also, in the specifications for pre 1971 cars there is no mention of the 253 cubic inch or 4.2 Litre V8 (HT onwards), 308 ci (5.0 litre) V8 (HT onwards, replaces 307 ci), 327 ci V8 (HK only), or 350 ci V8 (HT and HG models). All were readily available and now highly sort after - particularly the 327 and 350 ci versions. 220.240.235.14 04:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Steve 04:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC) 220.240.235.14 04:35, 3 January 2007(UTC)
[edit] Vauxhall Monaro?
I searched for Vauxhall Monaro, but came here. OK, so the Vauxhall Monaro is just a rebadged Holden Monaro. Possibly a few minor differences due to different legislations, and there are a couple of styling tweaks, but other than that they are the same. However, it is only the LATEST Monaro that has been sold as a Vauxhall Monaro. The earlier versions weren't available in the UK. Therefore, I propose a separate article entitled "Vauxhall Monaro" that details just the British part of the Monaro legacy.
- The "British part of the Monaro legacy" currently adds up to about to two paragraphs. If the Vauxhall Monaro section grows a bit it may warrant being moved to its own article, but for now I think it's fine where it is. I've restructured the article a bit and added subheadings so it should read a bit better now. I've updated the Vauxhall Monaro redirect to point to the new section --Richmeistertalk 01:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Alleged "blandness" of new GTO
Many people dislike the 2004 Monaro/GTO design. However, I personally find the newer look to be more exciting and stylish compared to the originals. Can we please refrain from sneaking opinion words into the GTO section when documenting its lack of success? The article can reference how people have found it "bland", but shouldn't itself insist the notion onto the reader--it's a subjective matter, after all. 71.139.178.45 20:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, so wording long the lines of "potental buyers described the styling as excessively plain or bland, and did not resemble their idea of a modern GTO" would be OK? By the way NPOV does not say that no opinions should be expressed, it says that all significant opinions should be represented. BTW2, if you don't think that is a significant POV then if it wasn't the car's looks that caused its failure in the US market, to what would /you/ attribute its failure? I don't think anyone has said it is bad mechanically, and it is better built than most US made GMs. Greglocock 20:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the main article for the Pontiac GTO does exactly what you are suggesting. This article has and only needs a small section dedicated to the Monaro's export to the US, so discreetness is probably the best option; your cited reference and the GTO article already cover the car's initial reception in the US in depth, so there really isn't any need to drive in such a point further than what is currently stated. My main concern, however, is the underhanded use of the word "bland" as if to say it is fact and not the opinion that it is. An actual fact is that people complained about the looks of the car and that had led to poor sales (something which I never denied), and there's nothing wrong with this article mentioning that for a bit. But it seems as if you're trying really hard to have the article itself insist that the car looked bland, which, as I've stated, is a matter of opinion, and it may be possible weasel wording (which is what I meant by sneaking opinion words into the GTO section). Wikipedia:Neutral point of view covers assertions of popular views and readers forming their own opinions in its explanation section. 71.139.178.45 00:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually the current wording is fine. However, this phrase earlier in the article seems to be excessively subjective "it was somehow seen as not as sporty looking compared to the earlier HK-HT-HG series, but is often now considered one of the best looking body designs to come from an Australian producer. " given that it is uncited, and sounds like OR and fails NPOV by your incorrect definition. Greglocock 03:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
