Talk:Tesla, Inc.

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 201 Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nanjingnan123 (article contribs).

Good article reassessment

Tesla, Inc.

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 • Most recent review

Result: Closing as no consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I reviewed this article back in February 2021 and I now believe that the article is too unstable to remain a GA. There were edit wars in May and March 2023. There was a period of heavy editing back in October 2022 which included countless reverts and changes (). The article recently underwent some significant changes in the space of a couple of weeks and continues to be edited heavily. Since I reviewed the article it has increased in size by over 2 thousand words and in Wikitext size by nearly 50k. Ahsoo1122 11:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

As stability doesn't often come up in GAR discussions, I'll ping the coords @GAR coordinators:User:Lee Vilenski User:Trainsandotherthings User:Chipmunkdavis and ask for their opinion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

So, something being unstable (inheritly or not) is not a reason to delist. We need to asertain that the articles new text is suitably far from the criteria for delisting. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

In that case, I will take a more thorough look at the article this afternoon. A first glance and it seems that the article has changed significantly from the reviewed version, so I find it likely that the article will have moved further from meeting the criteria. Willbb234 11:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I generally agree with Lee's comment above. Instability isn't a reason to delist in and of itself, but it may indicate other issues are present. I just skimmed the article and it appears to be very well cited. I do see an awful lot of one-sentence paragraphs and PROSELINE, but I'm not sure that alone would merit delisting. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Also agree with Lee V.'s assessment. We could introduce some sentence connectives here and there to help with the flow, but the information and the sourcing are relevant and appropriate. QRep2020 (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Sources During my source review in the initial review, I think I failed to properly question the reliability of all the references or some potentially unreliable sources have been added in the time since. Here is a list of sources which might not meet reliability requirements:

• Ref 8 . Unsure if Teslarati has an editorial process in place .
• Ref 21 . Self-published source. Content in question does not meet WP:SELFPUB.
• Ref 41 . Same reasoning as ref 8.
• Ref 103 is a blog.
• Ref 121 and 207 same site as ref 8.
• Ref 149 . What evidence is there that this data is reliable.
• Ref 175 is primary.
• Ref 202 and 350 appear to be a blog site.
• Ref 216 . No evidence of an editorial process.
• Ref 307 . Unable to access, but appears to be a blog site. Url now directs to a Turkish gsmbling site.
• Ref 328 . No evidence of an editorial process.
• Ref 359 . Deadlink. Unsure of reliability of the site.
• Refs 395, 397 and 399 are primary.
• Ref 403 likely a blog.
• Ref 431 . Blog.
• Ref 440 . Foreign language. Can't verify reliability.
• Ref 442 is a social media site.
• Numerous sources have an editorial team, but no other indication of reliability: Green Car Reports, Road and Track, Green Car Congress, Tech Briefs, Tesla North, Mining.com, Torque News, Transport Evolved, CSO, Daily Kanban, ZDNet, The Drive (used lots of times).
• Lots of reliance on the source Elecrek, which is at the least a questionable source . A single author, Fred Lambert, has written 29 of the sources in use in this article. This needs to be discussed at the very least. Nom defended this in the review , but I'm not so convinced. It appears it's come up in other talk page discussions as well.
• Lots of references missing authorship and there is inconsistent wikilinking and formatting throughout the references.

Stopped at ref 450 because this was taking too long. I think the problem here is that a significant proportion of the article is based on sources which we don't know are reliable and need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis which could potentially take some time. Of course there's some blatant issues here like this source which looks a lot like TikTok. Of course, this can be removed in a few seconds but if there's more issues like this that have fallen through the cracks, then the article surely can't be up to GA standards.

Prose

• The vehicle models section has been trimmed quite significantly from the reviewed version. I question whether this takes away from WP:GACR point 3 as it reduces the breadth of coverage, especially when the vehicle models should be covered in reasonable depth and breadth.
• WP:PROSELINE is an issue and the lead seems fragmented. Other formatting issues need addressing to improve readability.

Stability

• I understand the point about stability not being a reason to delist simply because the article is unstable. However, it is safe to assume that the article will continue to be unstable given previous editing pattern and thus it is difficult to predict whether the article will continue to meet the GA criteria in the future. If social media sites continue to be used as sources and not removed, then I highly doubt that the article can remain of GA status.

I'm happy to discuss this further and look for more evidence. The issue with an article of this length is there is so much content to try and work through, as I found in my initial review. Willbb234 12:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

At 11663 words, 74902 characters, the article is past the point at which trimming and/or splitting off content would be clearly reasonable, per WP:SIZE. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the above, @Lee Vilenski and QRep2020:? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

We could trim here and there, of course, but nothing that warrants a reassessment. The company receives near constant attention in the media and invites controversy at every turn, naturally its article will be long. QRep2020 (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe the main issue raised above was the quality of the sourcing, QRep2020. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I have complained about the article's overreliance on Electrek in the past, but the website has grown less partial to Tesla and Musk in recent years. The primary, tesla.com-based sources are minimal and the cited industry news sites seem reliable enough to me. QRep2020 (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll ask @GAR coordinators:User:Lee Vilenski User:Trainsandotherthings User:Chipmunkdavis to close this. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm having trouble closing this on consensus, so I thought I'd add my thoughts. The issues raised in this discussion were stability, writing and layout, sourcing, and overall size. While each may or may not (as has been mentioned) be enough of an issue on their own, they are not alone which suggests a higher level of work would bee needed. In addition to the sourcing, at least some of which seems to have been improved, the aforementioned WP:PROSELINE issues remain significant throughout the article (relatedly, the table of contents is over two screens long!). I would assess this as quite far from the GACR, and agree with a delist. CMD (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd also point out that while Electrek has not been directly reviewed, it's parent company 9to5 has been given a 100% score by NewsGuard for adhering to all of that organization's to standards of credibility and transparency. I'd say its up to the level of many trade publications at this point. Because of it's focus on one industry, it can come across as somewhat partial to that industry, but I have seen skepticism in recent years, especially of Musk's statements. But we use trade publications because they have a level of intimacy with an industry to be able to offer in depth and frequent coverage. As to the PROSELINE issues, it's valid, but I think it's unavoidable with a company with Tesla's stature. Inexperienced editors will always come in and add the latest factoid to the history section. It's incumbent on more experienced editors to come in every so often and convert the proseline into actual prose. I don't see these issues as disqualifying for GA status. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

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.

Article review

I know this article went through a WP:GAR a few years ago, but I think there are still some issues that need to be resolved:

• There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs.
• The article, at almost 14,000 words, is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Information should be spun out, summarised more effectively, or deleted if outdated.

Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

We can do some cleanup before doing a GAR.

I would spin off all of the lawsuits, controversies, issues sections - leaving a single paragraph for each and a link to the article where that info was moved to.

The facilities for N.America seems overly detailed for something that has specific articles for it - spin off that too. The other facilities aren't too bad. Possibly could spin off the entire facilities section, leaving just a couple of overview paragraphs.

Can you add {{cn}} tags as needed and we can then go looking for suitable references.  Stepho  talk  00:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

This a company with a ridiculous amount of lawsuits, controversies, and "issues". One paragraph reductions for those critical subsections is laughable when there are others that are rather lengthy for what they cover, like Partners and Business Strategy. The convolutions of the History section should be addressed before anything else. As for the ones you highlighted, they can certainly use a review and cleanup, but let's be reasonable. 03:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs: I am sorry that I did not see your request until now: I am more likely to see messages if I am pinged. I have added the citation needed templates. Are you still interested in working on this? Z1720 (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like my use of the royal "we" has got me in trouble. I'm not keen to go searching for the needed references. But I (as in me personally) don't mind helping out with the formatting of the references.  Stepho  talk  23:46, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Tesla, Inc.

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 • Most recent review

Result: Two weeks with no efforts to address the issues brought up here. Bgsu98 (Talk) 07:30, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The article, at over 14,000 words, it is past the recommend length at WP:TOOBIG, and detailed information should be spun out, summarised more effectively, or deleted if outdated. There is an orange "update needed" banner at the top of "Phantom braking" from Aug 2025. Z1720 (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Due to unsourced statements, at most, it's a C-Class Article. Bearian (talk) 08:56, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delist. While information was added on March 21, the concerns expressed above have not been addressed and no editors have indicated a willingness to do so. Z1720 (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

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.

TeslaOne and Factory mode and Digital twin approach and Production cells and Unboxed production method

I think small sections on those are needed.
*TeslaOne (aka mobAI) is a unified AI (made by unification of multiple AI's from the company) that allows fast redesign cycles (under 12h) and allowed the company to reinvent car manufacturing - it connects robots, material testing, procurement, CAM models, fleet telemetry, supplyy chain etc. Successor to Tesla warpdrive. It is "responssible" for Superbottle, Octovell, 100% automated production of heat pump, etc. Their biggest unknown secret acc to Joe Justice . Helped develop unboxed production method. Trained on production steps not just design. It unifies everything - from manufacturing to service to HR stuff (vacation time, labor laws) to cafeteria inventory to production scheduler to energy grid optimization to supply chain intelligence.... Honda and Toyota are copying it.
*Factory mode is a testing solution that tests every car component and every subassembly as they are assembled on the factory line as opposed to traditional testing of 1 out of X finished cars. That is also what allows constant redesigns of car components. I believe it is also used in SpaceX.
* It seems they also approached digital twin differently - most legacy manufacturers treat as designed, as built, as used as loosely connected domains - at Tesla one digital twin persists through all domains.It also monitors the factory that built it - production line, robots, tooling, supply chain.
*production cells - as opposed to production lines, and unboxed production method are reimaginings of traditional manufacturing processes. ~2026-36795-82 (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2026 (UTC)