Talk:AUTOart

NPOV dispute - The Complaint of the Sealed Cast Model

I feel this section editorializes needlessly- fair content for a blog post, but inappropriate for Wikipedia. The third paragraph doesn't even attempt to be neutral.

Sealed Diecasts

And yet the paragraph identifies an important economic and sales trend in the industry that has been evident over and over again. It is a valid observation, but I'm not sure Wikipedia is always about valid observations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cstevencampbell (talk • contribs) 20:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Yes, I wasn't trying to be anonymous...! Thank you. --Cstevencampbell (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It's still an opinion

It's still written as an opinion- "More moving parts mean more expense and it is not a surprise to see this happen again with AUTOart and other larger scale, more 'collectible' diecasts." and "Find a Matchbox or Hot Wheels car today with a moving part. There aren't many." actually challenges the reader. There's a clear editorial tone which is inconsistent with a neutral voice. Osunick (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Rewritten

I've rewritten the third paragraph to make it more neutral - because the information here IS simple observation over time of an ongoing process that is now affecting companies like AUTOArt.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

References

I have added Johnson as a reference. He discusses the relationship between UT Models and Paul's Model Art, adding authenticity to the legal battle - which is important to consider if it is handled even handedly - and I think it is. --Cstevencampbell (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

More References & Balancing

A couple more references have been added. Though granted, they are from the AUTOart website, they do counter the generally negative tone of the single casts section. Some people do rave about AUTOart model authenticity.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2011

Neutrality Issue Settled?

After nearly a year with no issues regarding the neutrality of this section - I've removed the neutrality notice from the section.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Relationship with Biante

Does anybody know the relationship between AUTOArt and Biante? Over the last decade I have seen a lot of Australian cars sold in Biante boxes and then seen almost identical cars sold in AUTOArt boxes.  Stepho  talk  04:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Stepho-wrs, Thought you might be interested in this, re: Biante. I incorporated it into the AUTOart article: Koch, Jeff. 2006. Trevor Young: 1945-2006. Hemmings Daily, January 26. [1]

Picture Pixels

I don't like to stick strictly with straight pixel sizes if the smaller size of the picture eliminates detail. With the smaller sized picture of the Saturn Vue, you just can't make out the car that well. This is why I've made it a bit larger. It looks better! Yes you can click on the picture if you want, but that kind of defeats the purpose of the enyclopedia. Are there other reasons to keep all the pictures the same picture size ALL the time? The best exceptions to 'publishing' guidelines tend to improve product, not the other way around--Cstevencampbell (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If people want to see detail then they click the image to get full size. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes they just look too much like thummbnails if there are small items in the picture or if it is in a box, so you have to squint to see - and that is not a natural reaction when trying to take all the contents of the encyclopedia page. So, in my opinion equality among images is served better if some are different sizes. It is more aesthetically pleasing to size the photo a tad bigger.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Lizardo Reference

Lizardo, Ed. 2011. Comment posted on AUTOart Models Facebook page and reproduced on the AUTOart Bulletin company website. [2]--Cstevencampbell (talk) 09:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)