Talk:DiDia 150

I have this info about the DiDia that I wasn't sure how to include in the article or infobox. V8 Engine, Displacement 365/427, Wheelbase 125, Built in Detroit, Mi. --MTHarden (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expand

The article is now start class. Manytexts (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination

Additional newspaper references added together with book references, which verifies first source article. Dan arndt (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The body framework was made of chromium-molybdenum steel, not aluminum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C482:4DB0:99C4:6562:F398:660F (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A number of problems to be addressed

The article as it stands is rife with questionable claims and illogical use of terms. I'll list some, in the order in which they appear:

"The 1960 DiDia 150 was a luxury, custom-designed iconic, handmade car... (emphases added)." "Custom-designed" and "iconic" are adjectives, so to conform with them, "luxury" should be "luxurious". And "iconic" is not an adjective that can be claimed without providing solid support from reliable second-party sources. That term is greatly overused today and should be reserved for cars that are indeed known by any car enthusiast. This one is not among them.
"Built in Detroit, Michigan, clothing designer Andrew "Andy" Di Dia designed this 'unrestrained and unconventional' automobile. (emphases added)" The sentence introduces the car's designer, so it should not begin with "clothing designer...". Also, whatever his nickname might be is irrelevant; he should only be referred to in an encyclopedia by the name that his article is under. Oh, except that he doesn't have an article about him, which means that his name should not be enclosed in brackets (which means that clicking on his name just brings one back to this article).
"...a hand-fashioned soft aluminum body... (emphasis added)." "Soft aluminum" is, to the layperson (which would describe most readers of this article) an oxymoron. Saying "soft steel" or "soft stone" would be equally confusing. It would be better to eschew "soft" entirely here. Furthermore there is some question as to whether the bodywork was aluminum at all; some sources say it was steel.
"The car has Batmanesque set of rear fins dominating the bodyline and ruby red hubcaps...(emphases added)." First, "Batmanesque" is not a word. One might make an argument for "Batman-esque", but that is as close as one might come to correctness. Second, what is "ruby red"? -Like regular red, only more-so? Do the hubcaps not match the body paint? If so, then describe the body paint as "ruby red", if you must, and say the hubcaps match it.
"Writer Daniel Vaughan describes it as...(emphasis added)." Who is Daniel Vaughan? Apparently he runs the website Conceptcarz.com. Perhaps he is the WP editor who added this info; I don't know. Does he pass WP:N? Is Conceptcarz.com a WP:RS?
"The car was designed by Andrew Di Dia, a clothing designer...(emphasis added)." This has already been stated once; it needn't be re-stated.
"Darin telling Di Dia at the time that he would purchase the car..." This is a sentence fragment.
"At the time the car was listed as most expensive 'custom-made' car in the world..." What's with the scare-quotes around "custom-made"? It seems pretty clear that the car was indeed custom-made. Also, "...the car was listed as most expensive..." is missing an article (it should read something like "...listed as the most expensive..."
"After publicity and film use, Darin donated his "Dream Car"..." "Dream car" is not a proper noun; it should be simply "...his 'dream car'..."
"The gasoline-fueled V8 engine...(emphasis added)." All cars with internal-combustion engines are presumed to be gasoline-fueled unless otherwise stated; there is no need to mention that.
"It has a glass cockpit in back..." How so? The driver's compartment and controls are the only part of a car that are commonly referred to as the "cockpit". Are you saying it has two cockpits?
"...a squared steering wheel resembling a superellipse (with n = 3⁄2, a = b = 1)...(emphasis added)." This is pedantry. Not one reader in 10,000 is going to know (or care) what a "superellipse" is, nor care about the formula provided. Saying something like "a slightly squared circle", or "a cushion-shaped wheel" would be far more likely to convey the intention.

Bricology (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]