GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Willbb234 (talk · contribs) 12:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review this article. It's a big one, so it'll take me a while so please bare with. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 12:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234: Thank you very much! I will soon start the revision according to your comments. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I'll look at the issues presented in the previous GA review and see if they have been addressed.

Extended content

copy and pasted from Talk:Tesla, Inc./GA1

  • As per cleanup banner at the top - article has too many references to self-published sources (Tesla's website). For example, references 8 to 21, and 157 to 167 are all linking to Tesla.com. Therefore, the content in the article needs to be evaluated/rewritten to reduce dependency on their company website(s).
  • This issue has not been addressed. For example, references 236, 226, 459, 458, 451 and others are linked to primary sources.
I removed about 90% of the primary sources since the last GA review. These are the ones left, which I felt were ok per WP:PRIMARY since they report a view or information that are only available from the primary source (such as the total vehicles delivered). Third party sources are generally just reporting this information taken from Tesla's reports. In any case, if you feel there should be no primary sources at all I can change these references. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are cleanup tags littered over the article such as [citation needed] and [better source needed].
  • This has been addressed, no citation needed tags found
  • Contents structure is inappropriate and too long - 19 sections is excessive (for comparison, although not good articles, even Ford Motor Company and Toyota are not that long).
  • The number of sections has greatly decreased and is more concise.
  • Lead section does not follow Manual of Style (MOS: Lead section). Needs to be 3 or 4 concise paragraphs.
  • Some more work on the lede is needed, but the main issue has been addressed.
  • Sales section - this is too high up in the article
  • I wouldn't agree with this point, I think the sales section is fine where it is.
  • Board of directors - this is too far down in the article
  • Moved upwards
  • Too many one sentence paragraphs or overly-short sections
  • This will require further investigation.
  • Some paragraphs sound like advertising or marketing material (eg. "Tesla's philosophy is not to make a profit on service. Tesla offers service at company-owned service centers. Mobile technicians can also perform most inspections and repairs")
  • This will require further investigation.
  • Article needs copy-editing for grammar, style and tone to be more encyclopedic
  • A look at the history of the article shows significant steps towards reducing this poor quality content
  • Philanthropy section just consists of three bullet points with no background or context
  • Philanthropy section removed
  • Lawsuits and controversies section - this is not easy to understand for general readers. In fact, large pieces of text have been copy-and-pasted from [1], a report by the Securities and Exchange Commission. This is a copyright violation.
  • Earwig's copyvio detector is taking a long time to process the article, so this will require further investigation.

Lede

"battery electric segment" is short for battery electric vehicle segment --Ita140188 (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments to come, Willbb234Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 12:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Deliveries" is the *ahem* preferred term of Tesla in their quarterly reports, 10-K's, etc. They don't report number of cars sold or manufactured, only how many they have "delivered." Critics have repeatedly pointed this out how unusual this is. QRep2020 (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have reorganized the lede by presenting the main information in the first paragraph, a summary of the history in the second, and controversies in the third. I also expanded it to include the early vehicle models. I removed all references, since they are all already present in the relevant sections and there are no obviously controversial statements in the lede. As for the inclusion of the founders, I am not sure if this information belongs to the lead given the controversy surrounding it and the relatively minor importance of this information (it is also already in the infobox). --Ita140188 (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
Although not perfectly coherent chronologically, I feel leaving it together with the discussion on the founding makes the context more clear and easier to follow. What do you think? --Ita140188 (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do think it's very relevant to the founding and for that reason it should stay. However, the title of the section is 2003-2004: Founding, meaning the events there should have happened in 2003 and 2004 only? Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 16:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are technically right, but I see this as a compromise which helps with clarity and flow. Facts are mostly presented in chronological order, but I think that sometimes it's necessary to "break the rule" to connect related events and better understand the context of what happened. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done see below.
 Done expanded section to include more information and context on the topics covered. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
 Done I removed the side box and included the info in the text with references. --Ita140188 (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done added more context --Ita140188 (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done listed one notable example --Ita140188 (talk) 10:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In March 2020, Tesla began deliveries of the Model Y crossover.[46]
These sentences once again are too short and they are two years apart, which doesn't really make sense.
 Done I completely restructured the History section. Hopefully it is clearer and more coherent now. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
In my opinion the way it is discussed in the History section is fair. We are just stating the facts. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Board of directors

 Done
 Done
 Done: replaced all primary sources
 Done
 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Business strategy

  • This paragraph contains language that is too hard to understand for the common reader.
  • The second sentence is a fancy way of saying "They use their profits to develop new products", which is essentially what every business does.
  • What does "low-volume" mean in this context?
  • A likewise for "higher-volume segment"?
  • "This strategy is common in the technology industry" you should be more specific with examples. Also, if it is common why does it need so much explanation?
I tried to reorganize the section, let me know if it is more clear now. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I removed most of it since it is mentioned elsewhere in the article and does not really belong in a "Business strategy" section anyway. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Musk's Twitter is an official channel anyway and he regularly tweets about product updates and prices. QRep2020 (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I added another reference to this statement (although the following references also already confirm this). Tesla has never paid for advertisement. --Ita140188 (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tesla doesn't advertise in the traditional sense, but it still advertises. See [2], [3]. To say it doesn't advertise in any form would be somewhat ludicrous. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 08:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. Ok, I changed the phrase to "Tesla does not pay for direct advertisement." which I think is a fair statement. What do you think? --Ita140188 (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Willbb234Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 14:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I significantly reorganized the section, let me know if it's good now and what can still be improved. Thank you. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technology

I fixed the sentence to be an intro to the section. Hopefully it is more clear now. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reorganized the section. The sentence is more in context now. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
 Done
 Done
 Done changed to "longer range"
I clarified that this is what the company announced.
 Done
 Done removed the sentence
 Done
 Done
 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the sentence is clearer now. The "arising from" refers also to the rest of the sentence ("allegations of whistleblower retaliation, alleged worker rights violations, and allegedly unresolved and dangerous technical problems with their products."). I strongly believe this statements belongs to the lead: the "Lawsuits and controversies" section is quite long and must be represented in the introduction. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
 Done
I removed the last sentence altogether. The system is available, so I am not sure what is meant by "far from being finished". It's probably a reference to full self driving, which however is the topic of the next section. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I put the full name with a link, I am not sure if more details are needed. --Ita140188 (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done

Vehicle models

I ordered the section chronologically. However, I feel that merging paragraphs further would decrease readability. Let me know what you think. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
 Done
 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me an indication of what would be best to add to Model X and Model Y sections without making the sections too long? Thank you! --Ita140188 (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done removed this unnecessary detail --Ita140188 (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
 Done
 Done
 Done
 Done
 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle service

 Done
 Done
 Done
 Done
 Done removed --Ita140188 (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I removed the detail about Europe. I haven't found more up to date numbers from reliable sources on the total number of chargers. However, mid-2019 seems reasonably up to date. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
The hardware is installed in all cars, but disabled unless the customer pays for the option. This is often done by other manufacturers as well (although not over the air) to keep manufacturing complexity low --Ita140188 (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
 Done
There doesn't seem to be any new information on this as far as I can tell. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battery products

 Done removed unnecessary conversion
 Done I added links to all three
 Done
 Done
 Done changed to "install"
 Done I removed the year. However, I think it is relevant to say that it will be one of the largest batteries in the world once operational --Ita140188 (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Facilities

 Done
 Done
 Done
 Done
 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
 Done I removed the sentence, as I could not find updated information and there is no indication of notability --Ita140188 (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
groundbreaking ceremony refers to the ceremonial start of construction. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right that makes sense thanks for clarifying. Willbb234Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 12:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the whole paragraph since it only contained speculation and was not encyclopedic/relevant enough in my opinion. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partners

 Done
 Done
 Done I removed the sentence altogether as it is difficult to source: it was just a summary of the following sections. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuits and controversies

 Done
As far as I can tell, they are all still ongoing. I am sure that the text will be updated as soon as new information comes in about the results of the lawsuits, given the attention this article gets. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done removed the sentence.
 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how to check this information. For now I just mentioned that it was filed, without specifying if still pending. I also summarized the sentence. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done summarized, added a reference, and updated --Ita140188 (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find updated information from reliable sources on whether the lawsuit was actually filed, so I deleted the sentence. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found several sources discussing the foundation but none have been updated since December. I will add references to List_of_lawsuits_and_controversies_of_Tesla,_Inc. until new information is released. QRep2020 (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
 Done it is unrelated, although it is about the same controversy. This was clarified. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
What do you suggest to add? I think it would be more appropriate to add the details article specifically about lawsuits: List of lawsuits and controversies of Tesla, Inc.. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Made lowercase. QRep2020 (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rewrote and included additional information. QRep2020 (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I moved the mention into the subsection area. QRep2020 (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's appropriate to place this in its own subsection. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 09:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any suggestions? I took your original points to indicate that the list was still worthy of mention somewhere in the article so I am not sure where else to put it. Would deriving a general statement about Tesla appearing on such kinds of lists work in the Controversies introduction? I am overly cautious about WP:SYNTH these days. QRep2020 (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like it shouldn't be in the introductory area to the section, but it would be a little weird just on its own in its section so it should either be removed or added into a section where the reasoning in the source agrees with the content in the article. The source says: One evil thing: Tesla has been criticized for using the term “autopilot” to describe its vehicles’ less-than-autonomous driver-assist feature, since drivers may put too much faith in a feature that is not meant to do the work for them (to occasionally fatal results). It also sells that as-yet-nonfunctioning “full self-driving” mode even though the rest of the autonomous vehicle industry now concedes such a thing is years or decades away. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 10:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the sentence. A lot is said about Tesla all the time, and the inclusion in a "Evil list" by one source is not relevant enough for this article. It is already cited in the main article about controversies. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Doh. Fixed. QRep2020 (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done removed.
 Done
 Done removed. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
 Done
 Done
 Done thank you very much for the thorough review, I had missed this! I added this information. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I capitalized Factory when it refers to Fremont Factory. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source does mention a dramatic increase: Like many manufacturing facilities Tesla’s Fremont plant has had a smattering of environmental noncompliance issues in the past, including two that that the company in the past year by paying fines to BAAQMD and the EPA. But the rate of deviations and violations jumped dramatically starting in 2018, as Tesla scrambled to stand up production lines for Model 3 and a series of fires at the factory drew increased regulator scrutiny. Though Tesla has emerged from the Model 3 “production hell” that apparently contributed to at least some of these violations
--Ita140188 (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done You are right. To avoid any interpretation, I just cited the facts as they are reported. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I removed the sentence. This information is hardly encyclopedic. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Willbb234: I will thoroughly revise the whole section. I haven't written almost any of this myself, and I should have paid more attention to it. I have mostly focused on the rest of the article. Please allow me to correct this before deciding on declining, as we both invested much time and effort in this. Thanks. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That specific section of the article has been a bit volatile so I am not surprised that some weird statements crept in when Ita140188 was not looking. I have done some major edits to the remaining subsections of Controversies to remove the unsourced claims and ask that you please continue your assessment. Thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done QRep2020 (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle product issues

 Done removed. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
 Done
NHTSA investigations can take years from my understanding. I did check to see if there were any updates. We can put a notice on the Talk page to check periodically maybe. QRep2020 (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Moved up to Controversies.
 Done Changed. QRep2020 (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Removed. QRep2020 (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Changed and details added. QRep2020 (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Removed autonomous driving part. QRep2020 (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the key difference is that once access is gained, hackers can control the car just through their computer, and without access to the actual car controls in the cabin, which is fundamentally different from a traditional car. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle sales

I removed outdated information from the section. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Removed. QRep2020 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I moved the "Dealership disputes" to the Controversies section. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Removed. I believe you asked us to confirm that statement's validity and Ita140188 replied with "As far as I can tell, they are all still ongoing. I am sure that the text will be updated as soon as new information comes in about the results of the lawsuits, given the attention this article gets." QRep2020 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finances

@Willbb234: Yes I agree, this is relevant. I added a sentence also in the history section. I am not sure if we should add even more information other than the sentence already in this section? It seems another controversy has just started (about bitcoin being not very environmentally friendly) so maybe we should update the Controversies section too. What do you think? --Ita140188 (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ita140188 I don't think there has been enough controversy surrounding this, and I think the criticism for Bitcoin's emissions is still quite speculative [20]. You can add it if you want though becuase there' probably enough media coverage. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 09:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm pretty much done reading through the article. I will do any more reviews of the sources, images, and anything else that catches my attention over the weekend. Sorry for the delay. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 23:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Refs, images, and other stuff

 Done replaced with more recent source --Ita140188 (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done removed the three references in the infobox that did not seem to refer to anything in particular --Ita140188 (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are used in the text to report the statement of Musk himself, so I think it should be ok per WP:PRIMARY. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done removed and replaced with more reliable sources --Ita140188 (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done removed --Ita140188 (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This source is used to report Tesla's declared intended strategy and its aim, so I think it should be fine to use per WP:PRIMARY. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done removed the ref, since the other one from Bloomberg already covers this information --Ita140188 (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
 Done
 Done
 Done removed. There is another reference to support the claims already --Ita140188 (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
 Done replaced
 Done
 Done removed as unnecessary --Ita140188 (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done removed the sentence, could not find reliable non primary sources for the number.
 Done removed as unnecessary
 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
 Done
 Done
 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done replaced --Ita140188 (talk) 07:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by primary in this case? It is a peer-reviewed scientific article --Ita140188 (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry should have clarified. It looks like a Primary source, instead of a secondary source which is generally preferred on Wikipedia. Willbb234Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 11:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done removed
 Done--Ita140188 (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this might be a better source as it seems like some Germans are actively trying to stop the summer 2021 date: https://sifted.eu/articles/tesla-gigafactory-berlin/. QRep2020 (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done replaced--Ita140188 (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
 Done removed
 Done replaced --Ita140188 (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
 Done
 Done replaced
 Done
I think this has been fixed?
Not sure what this refers to anymore --Ita140188 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done removed X-Editor (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done removed
 Done
 Done
 Done
 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
 Done
 Done
 Done
 Done removed --Ita140188 (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to wait for the conclusion of the discussion about the source on the talk page before I'll approve the references. Willbb234Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 12:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234: Although not for me to judge, I think Electrek is fine for non controversial information about Tesla, which is the way it is used in almost all cases in this article. I think the factual accuracy of the reporting is not in question. Of course being a publication devoted to promoting electric vehicles, the editorial opinion is clear. On the other hand, if we were to remove all references from Electrek, many statements would be impossible to verify from independent reliable sources (as I think Electrek is the most reliable among those that report this much detail) and a lot of the information in this article would need to be deleted. I don't think a decision like this should be based on one or two critical articles. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Generally look fine.

 Done
 Done--Ita140188 (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

 Done I combined several small paragraphs
 Done added a book. It seems there are no other notable books specifically about Tesla as far as I can tell (a lot of pseudo-self-published ones though).
 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ita140188 there doesn't seem to be anymore going on at the cleantechnica.com discussion so I think I'll go ahead and pass this for GA. Willbb234Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 20:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. There was some issues with too technical language or language that didn't make sense, but these issues have been addressed. The article has been trimmed where appropriate to make it concise. Any spelling or grammar issues were either fixed by myself, User:Willbb234, or User:Ita140188.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The lead section went through formatting changes and paragraphs were combined. Other sections which were fragmented have been combined. There were issues with WP:WEASEL words, but these have been fixed. In general, the article adheres to WP:MOS.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. There were close to no unsourced statements when I came to the article, and any issues were fixed. There were some issues relating to how closely the content in the article followed the cited content, but these were also fixed.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). All references were checked and any unreliable sources were flagged and removed. There is currently a discussion (which seems to have stalled) relating to the reliability of a source that was cited 15 times in the article. Contentious material, particularly that relating to the lawsuits and controversies was checked closer for consistency with sources.
2c. it contains no original research. As above. Sufficient inline citations.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. 33.8% violation unlikely, especially considering said source was from the government so is in the public domain.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. The coverage is wide and covers all main aspects of the company. The history section could be longer, but is sufficient.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Yes.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. There were some issues with how the criticisms of the company were presented, especially when the content wasn't completely consistent with the source, but the issues have been addressed.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. The article is currently semi-protected and is also monitored by a number of experienced editors. The high traffic to this article results in issues relating to addition or removal of content without consensus, but these issues, from what I have seen are sorted out.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Checked and fine.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. There were two points I made about the captions, and these were fixed. The images are all relevant.
7. Overall assessment. I initially had some issues relating to this article, most notably the use of poor sources and poor formatting, but Ita140188 has put in a lot of work to sort these issues. I can't blame them for nominating the article with a number of issues when the article is so large and needs a pair of fresh eyes to pick out the issues. I'd also like to thank QRep2020 for their involvement. Well deserved and happy editing.
More