The title of the article should appear in bold text in the first sentence, and the first sentence should be a definition of the subject (see WP:BOLDTITLE):
The article reads well and appears to be well balanced
I can't see a wikilink to Citroën other than in the info box - I'd expect the first "Citroën" in the text (outside of the title) to be linked DoneJenova2013:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had to click on the Euro NCAP link to find out what NCAP stands for, but then again I'm not hugely knowledgeable about cars. If it's not a common term I'd spell it out in full first time around (but no need to if your average car buff would recognise the term). The same is true for ESC, although it's spelt out in full later in the article. DoneJenova2014:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Optional extras - why are the roof racks and kerb side lights obvious? This seems subjective to me, and is unreferenced. - It is referenced that they are options, it is not referenced that they are "obvious" since i felt this was common sense. People will notice the difference between a car with a roof rack and one without, and lights in the mirrors that are visible at every angle of the car even without being knowledgable on cars. ThanksJenova20 14:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC) DoneJenova2015:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Purely a matter of personal preference, but I would put the references into a couple of columns using {{reflist|2}} DoneJenova2012:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally references should use the {{cite web}} templates, showing the page title, publisher and date accessed as well as the URL.Can you confirm that i'm doing it correct? ThanksJenova2014:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked all of the references but those I have checked are live and the text appears to be faithful to them.There isn't anything in the article unreferenced. Done Thanks Jenova2014:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The advertising and awards sections should be converted into prose, per WP:EMBEDI feel the advertising section already covers as much information as possible there, should i just get rid of the 2 bullet points? I left them as i thought it made it more obvious to the reader that there is 2 advertisements. ThanksJenova2014:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I think what's written there is fine, it probably just needs to be two normal paragraphs instead of two bullet points. waggers (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC) DoneJenova2012:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overall I wouldn't say it's GA status yet but isn't far off, and addressing some of the above should help it on it's way. waggers (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much Waggers. Please continue to point out anything amiss no matter how trivial and i'll do what i can to correct it and up the quality of the article. Jenova2014:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, great work so far! Re #6, I misunderstood "obvious" as meaning "it's obvious you'd want these on your car" as opposed to "when present, they're very obvious". Maybe "substantial" is a better word?
I think converting the awards and adverts sections to prose is optional at this stage, it's not a showstopper for GA. I'd like to see a few more categories added though, then I'll be happy to give it the nod. waggers (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well i'll change what i can to comply and boost the status of the article and it's great that you replied and reviewed in such a helpful manner. I've reached critical mass for this article and i'm trying to add more but struggling to find much now. I'll update your list anyway as i can.
As with any article there are still improvements that can be made but I'm more than satisfied that this now meets the GA criteria. Congratulations! waggers (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah! =D
That was a surprise but I'll keep working on it Waggers.
Now that I'm able to contribute instead of just review I've now added those categories! Please consider reviewing some other good article nominees as there's a huge backlog of articles waiting for assessment. waggers (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fab. Would love to but my current to-do list was just to get this article to good status.
You're always welcome to help me with that since I'm sure more notable articles is more important than having others already here at a better quality. Quantity over quality in this case. Thanks Jenova2019:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any please contribute as i'm working on a lot currently and my to-do list just isn't getting smaller. Thanks for the additions anyway, they're brilliant (except the tag obviously). I'll see what i can dig up. Thanks Jenova2015:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
