Talk:Tesla, Inc./GA2

GA Review

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

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

I'll review this article. It's a big one, so it'll take me a while so please bare with. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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) 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

• The third paragraph should be merged with the first as the first paragraph is too short and the third contains important information.
• If the content is sufficiently sourced in the body of the article, there should be no need to include these references in the lede section.
• "battery electric segment" should this be "electric battery segment"?

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

• "with more than 500,000 delivered" when you say 'delivered' I'm not sure what this means. This should be clarified with manufactured/sold.
• I don't think the lede is long enough for the article. It should include more details of the history of the company, including the founders and early models of car.

More comments to come, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"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)

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)

History

• Ref 16 is to Elon Musk's twitter, which isn't generally considered reliable. Please find a different source or remove the sentence.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think the s in 'Series A funding' should be capitalised?

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• "with Elon Musk contributing $6.5 million" you should introduce Musk here as it isn't clear whether he was an employee at this moment or not.

 Done

• The lawsuit happened in 2009 which makes me think it should be in the next section.

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)

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, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

• The "2010–2015: IPO, Model S and Model X" section is very fragmented so please try and combine this into one paragraph.

 Done see below.

• The title for this section is also quite misleading as here is very little on the Model S and Model X, and the IPO.

 Done expanded section to include more information and context on the topics covered. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• The $465 million is very significant and much larger than any other funding the company had received, so I'd like some more details on this if possible.

 Done

• The small box title "List of chief executive officers of Tesla" looks misplaced here and doesn't have any references.

 Done I removed the side box and included the info in the text with references. --Ita140188 (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• In November 2016, Tesla acquired SolarCity.[38] Few months later, in February 2017, Tesla Motors shortened its name to Tesla, Inc., to better reflect the scope of the expanded business. Tesla began selling the Model 3 sedan in July the same year. this paragraph sounds very fragmented; it's just a series of statements with little expansion or explanation.

 Done added more context --Ita140188 (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Tesla made multiple contributions of solar power to areas recovering from disasters in 2017" you should provide examples of these areas and disasters.

 Done listed one notable example --Ita140188 (talk) 10:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• In 2018, CEO Elon Musk briefly considered taking Tesla private.[45]

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)

• "$206 billion" the wikilink to dollar should be removed here.

 Done

• I've just read the discussion at the top of this talk page on the founders of the company. Please take extra care in the 'History' section so that it is clarified who the founders are. You currently say that the founders are Eberhard and Tarpenning which from my interpretation of the discussion is correct. I would appreciate your view on this.

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)

Board of directors

• "an investor group" you should try to be more specific here.

 Done

• Wikilink to SpaceX.

 Done

• Ref 57 is from Tesla's website which is not reliable.

 Done: replaced all primary sources

• Still some references needed for the second column in the table.

 Done

• The sentence below the table should be moved above the table to join the rest of the text.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Business strategy

• Tesla's product release strategy is to emulate typical technological-product life cycles and initially target affluent buyers, and then move into larger markets at lower price points.[21][68] The battery and electric drivetrain technology for each model are developed and partially paid for through the sales of earlier models.[21][69] The Roadster was low-volume and priced at $109,000. Model S and Model X target the broader luxury market. Model 3 and the Model Y are aimed at a higher-volume segment.[20][70] This strategy is common in the technology industry.[71]

• 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)

• With the Model S, Tesla's technology strategy was to start with a "clean-sheet" design,[74] and build an integrated computer hardware and software architecture at the center of its vehicles.[75] Doing so enables Tesla to provide online ("over-the-air") software updates to its cars,[76][77] which allows Tesla to improve the functionality and performance of its already-sold cars for free.[75] Tesla also continuously improve the hardware of its cars rather than waiting for a new model year, as opposed to nearly every other car manufacturer.[75] This paragraph seems slightly promotional. Would you agree?

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)

• "Tesla does not advertise." you need to cite this claim. I don't believe it; there must be some form of advertisement even if very very limited and in small areas.

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)

 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)

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, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 08:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

Sounds good. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Tesla is the first automaker in the United States that sells cars directly to consumers" This essentially repeats what has just been said.
• "CEO Musk" remove CEO.
• "Tesla allows its technology patents to be used by anyone in good faith, in order to promote the electric car industry in general," This, once again, repeats what has already been said in the paragraph.
• This whole section is of disappointing quality and overall seems quite promotional. I feel it needs to be nearly fully re-written.

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)

Technology

• As a vertically integrated manufacturer, Tesla has had to research and develop components in multiple technology domains, including batteries, motors, sensors, glass, and artificial intelligence. I'm not sure what this sentence is doing and it isn't referenced either, so this needs attention.

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)

• Starting in 2016, Tesla established a 5-year battery research and development partnership at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, Canada, featuring lead researcher Jeff Dahn. more is needed on this. Simply that it carries out "battery research" doesn't tell the reader much.

I reorganized the section. The sentence is more in context now. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• "All three are expected to play an important role in Tesla's battery strategy." This sentence is out of date as it has been many years since the previously described events took place.

 Done

• "Some analysts" see WP:WEASEL.

 Done

• "that Tesla had a $42 ($158 versus $200)" I understand what is trying to be said here, but it needs clarification.

 Done

• "more miles" to 'further'

 Done changed to "longer range"

• "This would be achieved by a more efficient production process, new battery design, cheaper resources for the anode and cathode, and better integration into the vehicle." This sentence is quite speculative and unspecific.

I clarified that this is what the company announced.

• BloombergNEF: please clarify what this is and use a wikilink if possible.

 Done

• "so that would mean a price of $56 per kWh in 3 years," not entirely sure where you got this figures from?

 Done removed the sentence

• "Many analysts" WP:WEASEL

 Done

• "which will be an important milestone." this is quite a vague claim. Important for what and whom? I would recommend removing this.

 Done

• "and is expected to be used in the Semi" please clarify what you mean by the 'Semi'.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry for the switch in order, but another comment from the lede: "arising from the statements and the conduct of CEO Elon Musk," the controversies and lawsuits were not all from his conduct so this should be clarified, or perhaps removing the quoted statement in whole.

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)

• "Tesla states that current (as of July 2020) Autopilot features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous" this sentence will need copyediting for grammatical issues.

 Done

• "HW3 was released in early 2019." any details on HW3?

 Done

• On April 24, 2020, Tesla released a software update to Autopilot. With this update, cars recognize and automatically stop at stop signs. The cars also automatically slow down and eventually stop at traffic lights (even if they are green), and the driver indicates that it is safe to proceed through the traffic light.[134] Tesla acknowledges that the software is still in a beta test phase and far from being finished. you should try to look for more up to date information on this. If it was "far from being finished" last year, then how fair is it from being finished now?

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)

• "the roof tiles" a little more background is required to understand what these roof tiles are.

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)

• There are lots of "as of..." here, which are quite out of date (9 or 10 months out of date) which need to be updated.

 Done

Vehicle models

• The 'Model S' section is fragmented and should be combined into one or two paragraphs. It is also a little out of order, starting with events in 2012, then 2016, then back to 2013.

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)

• "Among other awards" a little bit of WP:WEASEL here. Either remove that phrase, or provide a direct ref.

 Done

• The wikilink for sedan should be moved from the Model 3 section to the Model S section.

 Done

• Once again, try to condense the Model 3 section into one or two paragraphs.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• The Model X section is quite short. It's probably worth copy and pasting some info from Tesla Model X with attribution.
• Likewise with the Model Y section.

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)

• "2020 Roadster" I don't believe this is its proper name?

 Done

• From what I gather, the second generation roadster isn't on sale yet, so this needs to be clarified. Simply having it under the section 'Unveiled' doesn't explicitly imply this.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• "2016 Tesla Master plan" please clarify what this is.

 Done removed this unnecessary detail --Ita140188 (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Tesla Megacharger" is this meant to be plural?

 Done

• "Many online critics" WP:WEASEL

 Done

• "Musk announced he will reveal a redesign of the Cybertruck in approximately December 2020." update required here.

 Done

• You should clarify that the Cyberquad is a quad bike.

 Done

• "dodged a question" When and where was this question asked?

 Done

• "most experts" WP:WEASEL

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Vehicle service

• "paying for a WiFi hotspot in the car" clarification is needed on what a WiFi hotspot is, perhaps add wikilinks.

 Done

• "the Tesla app store" likewise with this.

 Done

• "fast-charging Supercharger stations" I don't think Supercharger needs to be italicised here.

 Done

• "Model 3 cars do not come with free unlimited supercharging." If there is a specific reason for this, then you should try to include it.

 Done

• "In 2014, Tesla discreetly launched" clarification on why this launch was 'discreet' and how.

 Done removed --Ita140188 (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• On April 25, 2016, Tesla launched European destination charging, with 150 locations and more to be added later.[230] Destination chargers worldwide totaled over 23,900 in mid 2019. I think this need to be updated, especially the part about the charging stations in Europe as this is about 2016.

 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)

• "Tesla vehicles' software is continuously updated" Saying 'continuously' is vague. Presumably they're not being updated all the time. If it's often, how often? Please clarify.

 Done

• "and rear-heated seats (for Model 3 owners)." I don't understand how a software update can introduce a hardware change as significant as this?

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)

• Try not to say "and/or". It's easier just to say 'or'.

 Done

• "For most vehicle manufacturers, only dealers can service (and sell) the cars" I don't think this is correct because a Automobile repair shop would service a car if I am not mistaken?

 Done

• In July 2020, Musk, relying on data obtained through their partnership with State National Insurance, announced that Tesla was creating its own major insurance company. The insurance will use individual vehicle date to offer personalized pricing. this needs updating if there is more information available.

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)

Battery products

• "6.7 hp" wikilink to hp, presumable this is horse power?

 Done removed unnecessary conversion

• There's a wikilink to the Megapack but not the Powerpack or Powerwall, so I'd change this for consistency.

 Done I added links to all three

• In May 2016, regulators had ordered SCE to invest in utility-scale battery systems to compensate local power supply after the closure of natural gas facilities you might want to expand on this to explain the relevance to Tesla.

 Done

• After Hurricane Maria in September 2017, Elon Musk offered to work with the Government of Puerto Rico in rebuilding the island's electrical grid. In October 2017, Tesla brought 700 solar panels to the "Hospital del Niño," where the batteries helped bring care back to 3,000 patients who needed constant care. perhaps another one or two sources for this paragraph would help.

 Done

• "received approval to deploy 449 Megapacks" I don't think 'deploy' is quite the right word here?

 Done changed to "install"

• "When operational in 2021" speculation like this isn't preferred on Wikipedia.

 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)

Facilities

• Instead of saying "multiple large factories", you should give a number to be more specific.

 Done

• There's a few references missing from the table.

 Done

• "Tesla's first assembly plant occupies the former NUMMI plant in Fremont, California," a little bit more on the factory's former usage would be helpful.

 Done

• "The factory received substantial subsidies from the local and state governments." a little more on this would help as well, how about giving some figures?

 Done

• " Tesla aims to have up and running by the end of 2021" this sentence doesn't make sense.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• "to reduce EU import tax" please explain why this tax is reduced.

 Done

• "As of February 2018, Tesla is building a small research and development office in Athens, Greece." this needs updating.

 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)

• Tesla confirmed its long-term plans to build a car and battery Gigafactory in Europe in 2016.[288] Several countries have campaigned to host.[289] A location and plans to begin construction near Berlin were announced in November 2019.[290] this needs updating. It also says 'several countries have campaigned to host', which implies present tense, but shouldn't this be past tense?

 Done

• "The groundbreaking ceremony was held on January 7, 2019." why was it 'groundbreaking'? It also seems a promotional word.

groundbreaking ceremony refers to the ceremonial start of construction. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh right that makes sense thanks for clarifying. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• "In January 8, 2021 Tesla incorporated Tesla India Motors and Energy Private Limited in Bangalore, India" a little more on this would help. What does the company in India intend to do etc?

 Done

• Tesla opened the first showroom in Australia in Sydney's Martin Place in 2010,[300] followed by a showroom and service center in Melbourne in 2015.[301] By 2019, Tesla had opened 4 service centers in Australia.[302] In 2012, Tesla opened its first "new design" store in Canada in Toronto, Ontario. As of March 2019, a total of nine Tesla stores/galleries operated in Montreal, Calgary, Toronto and Vancouver. wikilinks to locations are needed here.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• "In February 2020, several news sites reported that" there's a little bit of WP:WEASEL here. Also, you should include more references because 'several' means more than two.
• Brazil wants to have Tesla in the country, not only selling its cars but also producing them there. Tesla vehicles could then be exported to other nearby markets, such as Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, Colombia, the Caribbean region, and even Mexico, a country with which Brazil has a free trade agreement. These two sentences are unsourced.

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)

Partners

• "next generation cells" what does 'next generation' mean here. Sounds like something you'd hear on advertising.

 Done

• "In July 2014, Panasonic reached a basic agreement with Tesla to participate in Giga Nevada" participate in what way?

 Done

• Unlike many traditional manufacturers, Tesla operates as an original equipment manufacturer (OEM), manufacturing powertrain components for other automakers. Tesla has had partnerships with other auto manufacturers, such as Daimler and Toyota. this is unsourced.

 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)

• "Aabar is an Abu Dhabi government investment vehicle" I'm not sure 'vehicle' is the best term given the context and may cause some confusion.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Lawsuits and controversies

• "According to the legal advocacy website PlainSite, Tesla has been party to 620 lawsuits as of June 2019" this should be updated.

 Done

• "Ongoing cases include Musk's "Funding secured" tweet, CEO performance award, the acquisition of SolarCity, and allegations of whistleblower retaliation." could you please confirm to me that these are actually still ongoing?

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)

• "The tweet caused a furor on social media" among whom? Also, I thin it should be 'furore' not 'furor'?

 Done removed the sentence.

• According to the terms of the settlement: Musk was removed from his chairman role at Tesla temporarily; Tesla and Musk paid civil penalties of $20 million each; two new independent directors were appointed to the company's board; and Musk agreed to have his tweets reviewed by Tesla's in-house counsel. I'm not sure what's going on with all of these colons and semi-colons. I don't think they're being used correctly and you might want to re-write the sentence.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• "A civil class-action shareholder lawsuit over Musk's statements is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California" Is it still pending?

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)

• Shareholders filed seven lawsuits challenging the acquisition. The consolidated lawsuit alleges that Musk knew SolarCity was going broke before the acquisition, that he and the board of directors overpaid for SolarCity, ignored their conflicts of interest and breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the deal, and failed to disclose “troubling facts” essential to an analysis of the proposed acquisition. there are a lot of claims here and I think for the sake of safety, there should be more than one reference.

 Done summarized, added a reference, and updated --Ita140188 (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Over 100 dissatisfied Dutch Tesla owners have formed a foundation in order to sue Tesla over difficulty getting service for their vehicles." any more details on this?

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)

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)

• You should provide the full expansion of FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) when first mentioned, with FBI in brackets.

 Done

• "A stockholder class action lawsuit related to Model 3 production numbers was dismissed in Tesla's favor in March 2019" is this linked directly to the FBI investigation?

 Done it is unrelated, although it is about the same controversy. This was clarified. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• You might want to clarify that the fires at the Walmarts were just roof fires.

 Done

• There's also a whole host of other sources with plenty of information on the matter: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. I'm suspecting the matter is more serious than the article currently suggests.

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)

• "Tesla’s Security team" should the S be a capital here?

 Done Made lowercase. QRep2020 (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• I was intending to write specifically about the sources used in this article later, but this sentence: "In September 2019, a California judge ruled that Musk and other Tesla executives have been illegally sabotaging employee efforts to form a union." reads just like the source provided [9] (only a couple of words were changed).

 Done Rewrote and included additional information. QRep2020 (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Slate ranked Tesla number 14 on their "Evil List" of most dangerous tech companies in 2020" this is the view of only one media site, and I would consider it poor practice to include it in this prominence at the start of the sub section. Please give your opinion on this.

 Done I moved the mention into the subsection area. QRep2020 (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to place this in its own subsection. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

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, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

• You say "In September 2019, a California judge ruled that Musk and other Tesla executives broke 12 labor laws in 2017 and 2018 when they sabotaged employee attempts to unionize." but a read of this reference [10], shows that it was twelve company actions which broke labor laws, not twelve labor laws that were broken.

 Done Doh. Fixed. QRep2020 (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Outside of the courts, Tesla has been the subject of other public controversies, ranging from accounting issues to workers' safety complaints." not sure of the need for this.

 Done removed.

• Clarification for what "the SEC" are.

 Done

• "At the onset of and during the pandemic, CEO Elon Musk repeatedly downplayed its risks." this is unsourced, and I'd say that making claims like this needs at least three or four references, especially to show repetition.

 Done removed. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Fremont factory" the F in factory should be capitalised.

 Done

• Wikilink to CNBC and this should be in italics.

 Done

• Capitalise f in factory again. Or maybe it shouldn't be? I don't know.

 Done

• Per WP:BALANCE, see [11] and [12]. You might want to expand this accordingly.

 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)

• There's some more examples of uncapitalised fs in factory, I'm getting really confused now.

 Done I capitalized Factory when it refers to Fremont Factory. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see evidence in this source that "Environmental violations and permit deviations at Tesla's Fremont factory increased dramatically from 2018 to 2019". Perhaps it needs to be rephrased to say that there were violations but not that they had "increased dramatically".

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)

• You say that "there have been frequent fires since 2014" yet when I look at this source it says that "no fewer than four fires had taken place at Fremont’s paint shop since 2014." It could be argued that this isn't "frequent" and that the person who wrote this statement gave their opinion on this, which isn't right. If you think it does constitute 'frequent', then please let me know.

 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)

• You say "The United States Environmental Protection Agency also investigated Tesla for violations of the Clean Air Act," whereas when I look at this source I see it says Investigators from the Environmental Protection Agency have joined the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in assessing Tesla's Clean Air Act compliance at its Fremont, California plant, The Drive has learned. EPA investigators have performed off-site partial compliance evaluations for the Fremont facility twice since last December, suggesting that the Title V permit compliance issues that Tesla recently downplayed in a public statement have attracted interest beyond the local regulator which is currently negotiating penalties for 19 notices of violation. To me, this looks like an inspection/assessment of the site to see whether it complied with the act as opposed to an investigation into violations of the act, which are two separate things.

 Done I removed the sentence. This information is hardly encyclopedic. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• There is a reoccurring theme of disappointing use of sources here. I'm thinking about declining the GAN off of this as it raises some serious issues about the validity of the article. We might be getting into hot water if these claims aren't accurate, as well.

@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)

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)

• The statement on Giga New York could do with another one or two sources.

 Done QRep2020 (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• "with over 20% of its stock was shorted" this doesn't sounds quite right, how about "with over 20% of its stock being shorted"?

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Vehicle product issues

• "Tesla vehicles have received coverage for fires (both crash and non-crash related) as well as crashes involving the use of the Autopilot driver assistance system." I'm not sure this sentence is needed.

 Done removed. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• The NHTSA is only introduced in the this section but it's written about in the controversies section. It should be introduced the first time it's mentioned then referred to as NHTSA from that point on.

 Done

• "after the automaker said it would provide more protection to its battery packs" saying 'the automaker' seems very strange here when Tesla is the automaker so this should be changed.

 Done

• There's lots of mentions about the NHTSA opening up investigations about vehicle issues, but none of these come to any conclusion. Is there anything more you can find on this?

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)

• "In March 2018, an Apple engineer was killed in a crash in a Tesla Model X." I'm not sure that it's relevant that he's an Apple engineer. Perhaps just the 'a driver' or something like that.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure 'delays' would come under 'Vehicle product issues'

 Done Moved up to Controversies.

• "Tesla has been criticized for repeatedly delaying both production and release of products." From a quick read of the two sources provided, it seems this is more Musk's doing, so perhaps saying Musk instead of Tesla would be more appropriate.

 Done Changed. QRep2020 (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• "An analyst with Cowan and Company, a public relations firm, made this comment: "Elon Musk needs to stop over promising and under delivering"." I don't think this opinion should be here, firstly because it's just 'an analyst' and secondly because I wouldn't consider this firm a reliable source.

 Done Removed. QRep2020 (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Delivery dates for Model 3 slipped as well." I don't think 'slipped' is an appropriate word. Also more details should be included.

 Done Changed and details added. QRep2020 (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think this criticism is harsh. It appears that other manufacturers have done the same things, particularly with regards to self driving [13][14]. We're talking about very new and modern technology here and to present it in this light is somewhat unfair.

 Done Removed autonomous driving part. QRep2020 (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• The software hacking section is fine how it is, but consider the fact that a bog-standard car can be hot-wired meaning perhaps this critisicm is once again a little harsh.

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)

Vehicle sales

• This section needs reorganising into chronological order.

I removed outdated information from the section. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Countries other than United States do not protect dealers" This statement is wrong for many reasons. Firstly, what countries? Secondly, what protection? And thirdly, I question the factual accuracy of the statement.

 Done Removed. QRep2020 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps this criticism belongs in another section.

 Done I moved the "Dealership disputes" to the Controversies section. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Citation needed tag [15] needs addressing.

 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)

Finances

• As has been discussed on this talk page, the Bitcoin investment seems pretty significant (albeit not enough to change the company from being clean energy). I would suggest more information on this investment be included in the article. Here are some refs to demonstrate significant coverage. [16], [17], [18], [19].

@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)

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, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

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, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Refs, images, and other stuff

• [21] dated 'as of December 31, 2019'. This ref is used in the infobox to show that Musk owns 20.8%, but this is quite out of date so this might have changed.

 Done replaced with more recent source --Ita140188 (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Not sure if [22] (ref 9) this is reliable.

 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)

• Refs 11 and 12 are to Twitter and youtube so should probably not be used, if possible.

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)

• [23] (ref 15), has been widely used, but I don't think it's reliable.

 Done removed and replaced with more reliable sources --Ita140188 (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 17 is to youtube

 Done removed --Ita140188 (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 20 ([24]) was written by Musk himself.

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)

• Ref 34 needs to be expanded and is a dead link.

 Done removed the ref, since the other one from Bloomberg already covers this information --Ita140188 (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 48 needs expanding.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 56 needs expanding.

 Done

• Ref 123, 124 needs expanding.

 Done

• Ref 127 needs dating.

 Done

• I don't think ref 148 [25] is reliable.

 Done removed. There is another reference to support the claims already --Ita140188 (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• There's a few inconsistencies. For example I've seen 'wsj.com', 'WSJ', and 'Wall Street Journal' all used to refer to the same media company. this doesn't need fixing, as it really doesn't matter, but if you have some spare time on your hands you might want to fix it.
• Ref 194, 195 need expanding.

 Done

• Ref 200 is dead link and needs expanding.

 Done replaced

• Not sure if ref 201 [26] is reliable and it's also very dated.

 Done

• Ref 201 [27] author is wrong. Also, I'm not sure if it's reliable as it looks like a blog site.

 Done removed as unnecessary --Ita140188 (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 227 author is wrong. Also, I can't seem to open the link, let me know if you are able.

 Done removed the sentence, could not find reliable non primary sources for the number.

• Ref 232, see 2 bullet points above for same issue.

 Done removed as unnecessary

• Ref 233 [28] needs author.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Please note: you have removed some references, so the reference numbers will be lower than what I have said here
• Ref 240 [29] needs author.

 Done

• Ref 242 [30] needs author.

 Done

• ref 249 [31] needs author. You can see this by scrolling to the bottom of the page (Jacob Marsh)

 Done

• Ref 259 [32] needs author.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 260 [33] looks like a primary source.

 Done replaced --Ita140188 (talk) 07:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Not sure if ref 267 [34] is reliable because it looks primary.

What do you mean by primary in this case? It is a peer-reviewed scientific article --Ita140188 (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry should have clarified. It looks like a Primary source, instead of a secondary source which is generally preferred on Wikipedia. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 274 [35] same issue as ref 201 (see above).

 Done removed

• Ref 275 [36] needs author.

 Done--Ita140188 (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

• Not sure if ref 285 [37] is reliable.

 Done replaced--Ita140188 (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 294 [38] authorship needs to be fixed. Looks like a slight refill issue.

 Done

• Ref 308 [39] is to youtube.

 Done removed

• Ref 309 [40] needs expanding. Also, authorship is wrong.

 Done replaced --Ita140188 (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 312 [41], 313 [42] needs author.

 Done

• Ref 315 [43] needs format fixing. I believe there's a pipe (|) missing.

 Done

• Not sure if ref 316 [44] is reliable.

 Done replaced

• Ref 317 [45] needs author.

 Done

• I know this is quite a bit to do, so please take your time.
• Ref 308 needs fixing - 'no italics or bold'

I think this has been fixed?

• Ref 319 is a dead link and I don't think it looks reliable considering it's a primary source.

Not sure what this refers to anymore --Ita140188 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done removed X-Editor (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 324 from 'The Daily Green' is dead.

 Done removed

• Ref 330 [46] is a forum post so definitely not reliable.

 Done

• Ref 343 [47] needs author.

 Done

• Ref 345 [48] needs author.

 Done

• Ref 350 [49] needs author which can be seen at bottom of the page.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 353 [50] needs author.

 Done

• Ref 363 [51] and 364 [52] need authors.

 Done

• Ref 366 [53] needs author.

 Done

• Refs 374-378 all need authors.

 Done

• Ref 381 [54] is to youtube.

 Done removed --Ita140188 (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to wait for the conclusion of the discussion about the source on the talk page before I'll approve the references. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@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)

Images

Generally look fine.

• I think a ref is needed for the image captioned "Tesla Motor's showroom in Aoyama, Tokyo, which was the first showroom opened in Japan."

 Done

• This caption "First deliveries of Model S at the Tesla Factory in Fremont, California" could do with a date.

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

Further comments

• I think I previously mentioned this, but the article is still quite fragmented. I think you did some work to try and fix this, but the areas I still see are the 'Model S' section, 'Cybertruck' section, 'Software updates and upgrades' section, and 'Deployments' section. I think a bit more could be done to combine the small paragraphs into one or two larger paragraphs, if that makes sense.

 Done I combined several small paragraphs

• Just a suggestion, but there's got to be more books on Tesla which could be included in the 'Further reading' section.

 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).

• Also ref 1 [55] needs an author.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

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.