Talk:Honda CBR1000RR
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Customers and Press Opinion
Customer opinions should be pulled out. Not encyclopedic info. Press opinions should probably be changed to something else like "Press Feedback" and should only be listed if sources could be shown. Thoughts? Roguegeek 16:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- The more I look at the opinions section, the more I think it shouldn't be there. Opinions are not encyclopedic material and are not allowed in this way on Wikipedia. No one has posted any feedback so I'm just removing it. If you think otherwise, let's discuss here before we bring it back. Roguegeek 07:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Competitors
The actual competitor list looks fine to me. Problems come from no sources provided for the info shown after a competitor is listed. Although I am a fan of the bike, it seems to be more opinionated than factual information and this is a problem. Info shown here should be encyclopedic only. If it's not verifiable info, I suggest we take it down. Is there a reason why we can't simply list competitors instead? Maybe we could just take the section out all together and list competitors somewhere else (although it already is listed in the info box on top)? Thoughts? Roguegeek 16:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- The more I look at the competitor section, the more I think it shouldn't be there until the info listed is completely encyclopedic, which I would consider none of it to be. I'm removing it until we can find info with sources as defined by Wikipedia. Roguegeek 07:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Specifications: Speed
The info under speed in specifications is subjective and probably shouldn't be listed as a spec unless a source is given. I know for sure manufacturers (especially Honda) do not list 0-60mph times, 1/4 mile times, and top speed anywhere in their official spec lists because they too know it's an objective field and can vary depending on several conditions. I'm removing from specs list immediately but have no objections putting in a "Performance" section that could list info like this with a source. Thoughts? Roguegeek 16:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New distinctive features - POV language
I've tagged the "New distinctive features" section as non-neutral due to pervasive POV language. There are lots of value-judgment statements:
"It is the only real innovation of this motorbike that, except this, it is a very good package of state of the art..."
"...very useful in superbike competition but with no effective utility in normal usage pattern."
"...but it adds weight (in wrong position , far from center of mass) and it has (minor) problem..."
I like that there is apparently someone with experience and knowledge contributing to this article but the language really should be cleaned up to be more encyclopedic and less preachy. --Bk0 (Talk) 01:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. Please change as you see fit. Roguegeek 05:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Complete Rewrite
This article needs almost a complete rewrite. Sentences aren't put together well. Some are totally incomplete. Sections have some POV issues. I'll be working over the next week to do some major cleanup work on this. Have already started by replacing the specs listed with the specs Honda has actually issued. --Roguegeek 17:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
