Wikipedia:Peer review/Tesla Model S/archive1

Tesla Model S

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because i'd like to take it to FAC. Would appreciate feedback from @Femke and UndercoverClassist:, who left many comments at the failed FAC (but did not leave a supporting vote). Thanks, 750 h+ 12:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, @UndercoverClassicist: 750 h+ 12:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping: at the moment, I don't have much to add to what I wrote at the FAC, but I'd be happy to take another look if the article's content were to change substantially. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It kind of has (went from around 5 and a half thousand words since you last reviewed to 6.1K) but I can wait until Femke leaves her comments if that’s fine. 750 h+ 16:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very glad to see this PR. This is a tough article to get right due to the hype and hatred around Tesla, which means we need a more critical look at sources compared to other car articles. I will review some more, but not sure when as I've got family visiting and might have a long covid crash afterwards. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got a few minutes, so I'll continue where we left off, the environmental impact section.

The sentence about unintuitiveness still doesn't work for me. Now, it's unclear what unintuitive. The point the guy wanted to make is that Tesla's batteries have very high recyclability, not that it's unintuitive.
Dana Thompson is unlikely to be notable (she's a PhD student or postdoc I think). WP:Red links are for notable topics.
In terms of organisation of the section:
- I would start with the CO2 emissions story, which in my (biased) opinion, is more important than the battery story.
- I would group all the bits around recycling of batteries into one paragraph as much as possible
It may be nice to talk about how Tesla repurposes old batteries as home batteries (reuse), rather than go the recycle route.
A 2021 scientific study by iScience --> Usually, we don't say a study is by the publisher. The journal only printed it, they didn't write it. Best to say "A 2021 study" instead.
Given that 2015 is 9 years in the past, the word "current" in "due to limited data on current recycling practices" is off. It can be omitted, or replaced with "at the time" after recycling practices. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]