Talk:Chrysler 180

Chrysler 180 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 19, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
May 1, 2025	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

Automobiles Low‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is a selected article at the Cars Portal.

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Good article nomination 2007-09-16

I've fixed up the issues I came across in the article, and I would firstly like to comment on how well it is written. It seems to pass all the criteria, but it obviously needs more work to make it to featured article status. It is mainly the lack of images and bare minimum references. Since the article meets all the specified criteria, I hereby grant this article good article status. Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 06:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fragment added by anonymous IP, moved from article

Real Reason for Failure, a former Rootes/Chrysler UK Retail Dealer's view of the 180

Related below are comments from a former manager of a Rootes/Chrysler UK dealership in the 1960's and 1970's on the 180/2litre.

"The real reason for for the 180s failure was the utterly appalling reliability and build quality. The 180's engine suffered from rapid wear of the the camshaft and followers which was made obvious by loud clattering noises from the valve gear and also many cars had with problems with valve stem oil seals which resulted clouds of grey smoke to be emitted for the exhaust." "The braking system was also much more troublesome than on other Chrysler Europe models sticking rear brake caliper hand brake mechanisms and failed brake pressure proportioning valves were common." "The body shell also was not without its problems apart from being more rust prone than any previous Chrysler Europe vehicle fatigue induced fracture of the front chassis rails adjacent to the brake reaction rod mounting was relatively common." "When production switched to Spain the build and component quality slipped further." "As a result like other many small scale former Rootes retail dealerships my firm simply felt that the 180 was so bad we simply could not recommend it to customers, so we simply stopped stocking them and pointed customers to the smaller but proven Hunter/Arrow range vehicles."

Comment on why the above fragment was removed

This is not an appropriate addition to this, after all, Good Article, as it does not refer to a published, verifiable and reliable original source, but rather publishes the findings of the author established during the purported interview. This is using Wikipedia as original source, which is not acceptable for it being an encyclopedia. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Large, really?

Is it fair to call it large or even executive? It's smaller than Turkish-built Toyota Corolla (current generation). Granted, cars inflated with time, but even by European standards of 1970s it's far from large. A far larger Volvo 200 Series is listed as mid-size. ?? NVO (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria due to uncited statements throughout the article, including the entire Chrysler Centura section. Is someone willing to address this concern, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't care less about the article status, but the Centura section is uncited because it is a condensed version of Chrysler Centura. Mr.choppers | ✎ 20:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr.choppers: If the information is from another article, that information will need to be cited here. Would you be willing to do that? Z1720 (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited the one reference that I own. Mr.choppers | ✎ 00:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr.choppers: There is still a lot of uncited text in this article. Are you willing to resolve this, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said: I couldn't care less about the rating; it is meaningless. I want to make good articles, not Good Articles. Please just grade it as you see fit. Mr.choppers | ✎ 15:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Chrysler 180

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Concerns resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple uncited statements, some tagged as such since March 2023. While some work has been done to rectify this, the work seems to have stalled. Z1720 (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 I think I have resolved your concerns. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 21:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.