Culture

Which Auto Brands Should Go? There are too many brands and not enough buyers. Many auto-industry insiders agree weak ones should

by felixdakat | May 27, 2008 at 08:33 pm | 342 views | 9 comments | 2 recommendations

Should Ford Motor dump Mercury and Volvo? Jerry York, the longtime adviser to billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian's who recently acquired 5.6% of Ford, seems to think so. According to Automotive News,
on May 1 he said out loud what a lot of people have been quietly
thinking, namely that Ford should sell its two struggling brands,
Mercury and Volvo.

recommend Add a comment

Sanjay Jha

at 21:06 on May 27th, 2008

felixdakat, I think your story has potential but needs some improvement. I've got a few suggestions, and if you give them a try, I'd be happy to remove this flag. I wasnt sure what was newsworthy in this story. News should always be about posting current stuff - new things you've discovered. Please review What Makes News News. It can really help if you follow the old "W5" news formula -- making sure you have answered the questions: Who? What? Where? When? And Why? (You might want to check out our J-Tips for more help.) Pls write in detail about the nature of the story

Sanjay Jha

at 21:36 on May 27th, 2008

felixdakat, thanks for improving your story -- I can see you've put more effort into it. I've removed the flag and now more readers can see it. Thanks for your contribution.

felixdakat

at 21:17 on May 27th, 2008

Newsworthy items in the article include China's new rich having a taste for and possibly saving Buick. The sales of several Ford division. The possibility that the popular Hummer brand could be discontinued and the economic reasons and difficulties of closing an automotive brand. Being a "car guy" I truthfully thought it was an interesting piece.

PEP

flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 21:21 on May 27th, 2008

felixdakat, I like this story. It's good stuff. One comment though: it would have been stronger had you excerpted the beginning of the Business Week article and two or three more paragraphs. The small out-take you grabbed, which comes lower down in the article, doesn't give a sense of the total context of the article. Maybe it would help if you go back and edit your highlight.

felixdakat

at 21:33 on May 27th, 2008

Thanks. Had some problems changing it and I hope it's for the better.

PEP

at 07:42 on May 28th, 2008

Hi, thanks for expanding this material. Since your original had a Highlight box, and you said you had problems, can we assume that the Highlight box didn't work right the second time around? You may wish to add a note to that effect (see Matte's comment, below.) Next time around, do the fuller highlight, then add some commentary of your own outside the Highlight box. Cheers!

matte

at 05:17 on May 28th, 2008

It is a lift from another site with no reference or attribution and as such is plaigerism.....you need to comment, properly quote and attribute it and possibly even do some more commentary or provide new info as a result of your own research

PEP

at 07:45 on May 28th, 2008

It's a highlight, Matte. The original highlight worked properly, but I thought it needed expanding. The contributor did so, but as you'll note in his later comment, he had problems doing so. That material *does* need the highlight box. But he had it originally. And there's the link to the original story.